Forum:Magnus, Divided Loyalties and more

Index → Panopticon → Magnus, Divided Loyalties and more

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

This thread was blanked by CzechOut at 14:21: Tue 06 Nov 2012. I am re-blanking and editing this forum post down to the most recent edits by 41.133.0.18 in order bring some clarity to the discussion that the previous copied text from the Magnus talk page did not.

The original discussion was at Talk:Magnus.

To 41.133.0.18 do not copy and past the text from that talk page. Users who wish to follow the discussion so far can go to that talk page.

Panopticon forum threads propose changes in the way we do things on this wiki. In simple terms, please restate what it is you're trying to change, and what supporting evidence you have for that change. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:50, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

This started on the Magnus article. An original point stating that Gary Russell explicitly stated that Magnus in Flashback(comic) was always meant to be The Master. It grew from there.

Summary

1)Gary Russell himself states that both he and Warwick Scott Gray agreed that the Magnus in Flashback(comic) is The Master.

2)The questions as to why/when/where things like Death Comes to time and Dimensions in Time are labelled non-DWU still stand. When did the creators of these, the Cushing movies, or various stories that tie into Dimensions in Time ever say those stories were non-DWU? And if they didn't what were the criteria for listing them as non-DWU here? Surely those criteria should be applied the same to every story, not just those select few?

3)Even if it is felt, for whatever reason, that the War Chief and the Master are two separate characters, there is clearly NOTHING in any media that states that they can not be the same character. 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 13:16, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

...Oh, and another point. The fact that Malcolm Hulke(writer of, amongst others, the War Games) stated that the Master and the Doctor were the only two renegade Time Lords he ever wrote for was dismissed, because it was "non-narrative". Yet, the supposed reason Death Comes Time is excluded from the DWU is because of a real-world statement that somebody thought he saw somewhere. The real reason is of course because it contradicts the established continuity to the point where no amount of fanwankery can reconcile it with established fact. Same as Divided Loyalties. Of course, if that real-world("non-narrative") statement is valid, then what about Russell's or Hulke's or...? 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 13:55, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

This issue is obviously very important to you. However, you don't seem to care about the people you are trying to convince. This page is a long wall of text that will turn away many readers. Instead of copy/pasting the other arguments, try giving a short summary of your arguments. Then you might get more discussion. Shambala108 ☎ 14:49, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

It started off at the Magnus disambiguation page. Basically, a post by Gary Russell stating that Mag(n)us from the Flashback(comic) was always supposed to be The Master. Confirmed by Warwick Scott Gray, the person who actually wrote Flashback(comic). And that there is nothing in any media which makes that an impossibility. Someone else then took that to mean that I was stating that the War Chief is the Master. Not my original intent, but he said he was "going to support me". This site's policy is that anything in a Target novelisation which gives extra background to, without contradicting the original tv serial counts. so, the long passages of text are from Target novelisations of The War Games, Terror of the Autons, The Doomsday Weapon(Colony in Space) and The Sea Devils. As well as a real-world interview with Malcolm Hulke. This was then greeted with "But what about Timewyrm:Exodus and Divided Loyalties?" So, it was then a job to show how Timewyrm:Exodus doesn't contradict any of the above. Fine. Then came the biggie "Divided Loyalties". I had to give text from that book, as well as text from other narrative sources, showing how it can't possibly exist in the same universe. Another user appeared, demanding I take it to the forum, and locking that discussion. Someone else, then said that Death Comes to Time is excluded because someone supposedly said somewhere that it was non-canon. Despite no evidence. This, despite Hulke's and Russell's real-world statements being dismissed as "non-narrative"! The only way to get everything here, was to place the entire discussion here. Simply glimpsing bits will omit the development. The same person who locked the earlier discussion then blanked this one. They have also yet to actually state their position. 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 15:00, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oh. earlier, the same person told me that "the burden of proof [was] on [me] to show that Round 4 Part 3 of divided Loyalties can't be part of the DWU". Immediately after I did so, he locked the discussion, saying it's "unfair to other users". 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 15:04, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

One thing I think needs to be made clear. When we tag things NOTDWU, we're not making a judgment on the "official" statement of canon, it is merely a statement of what we cover on this wiki towards in-universe articles.

For these we've had several discussions involving inclusion, as was mentioned on the Talk:Magnus page these are in the Forum:Panopticon archives, many of the pages have been categorised into further categories for ease of searching you can find the; inclusion debates in Category:Inclusion debates, the discussions relating to changes in policy in Category:Policy changers and explanations of policy in Category:Policy explanations. All of these have some bearing on your questions.

You may also wish to see Tardis:Valid sources which explains these rulings in a simple to follow page.

As to your query concerning Death Comes to Time (webcast) you can read the forum discussion here: Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time. Although I'm not sure what this question has to do with your Magnus question.

As far as contradictions in the valid sources goes, don't worry about it. It doesn't matter if the valid sources contradict one another, we just present the information. Just because there's contradictions doesn't mean we discount one source, and a contradiction doesn't mean source or another is invalid. As the valid sources states "The DWU has messy continuity. A story can't be declared invalid just because it contradicts other stories".

Finally "giving the text", a small quote is fine, but as Shambala108 and CzechOut have said, summarise your statements, the great chunks of unformatted text do not assist the discussion.

Now to go back to your initial quote which started this whole thing:

He was in a strip I commissioned from Warwick Gray for the Time Lord special I did at Marvel. In Wick's original, he was called Magus and meant to be the Master but I cocked it up and called him Magnus. When Dave McIntee created Koschei, it struck me on re-reading Wick's strip that the character could just as easily, if not better, be the War Chief. Which he is in DL. Gary Russell rec.arts.drwho 04/11/1999

This quote if anything confirms what we have presented in our The War Chief article. That the War Chief is Magnus, as is in Divided Loyalties (novel) (or DL as Russell states).

In Gray's original, it was meant to be the Master, but the editor; Russell "cocked it up".

We take what's presented in the stories as the facts of the DWU universe, not what might have been. What might have been is interesting (when properly sourced), but it's stuff that goes in the "Behind the scenes" section on in-universe articles or the "Notes" section on story articles.

I think from that incorrect assumption you running with that theory and creating an argument to sustain it. But going by your initial point that began this discussion, what appears in Flashback is pretty much what we've got on this wiki at the moment. Russell might have made a mistake in his editing of the strip, but later he didn't attempt a ret-con of the story, he read McIntee's The Dark Path which is where Koschei comes from and wrote Magnus/the War Chief into Divided Loyalties, influenced in part by Flashback. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:37, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you fully understand the point. Well, points actually. It started off as one thing, but is now a multi-purpose thing. However, separating them doesn't give a proper idea. which is why the original discussion at the Magnus discussion page is relevant to this discussion here. Even in a simplified, "bullet point", form. Gray and Russell both stated that Flashback was a Master origin story. Had this wiki existed then, it would have been a no-brainer to list that as a Master story. In fact, many wikis, books etc. still do just that. So, that was the point. Someone else(not me!) then stated "Are you saying the War Chief is the Master?" At that stage that wasn't my intention at all.But, after being spurred on, I found both narrative and real-world elements that showed they are. Then someone brought up Timewyrm:Exodus. Well, that wasn't a problem. Then came DL. And there's Russell's quote. There was a discussion about the Deca dream sequence, which apparently showed that the Deca sequences are dreamlike, not literal. Then I was told that i had to show that the epilogue sequence wasn't literal. So, the major continuity errors were shown, as well as the fact that elements from the dream sequence carry over into that epilogue. Then that discussion was locked. Now someone has looped back to the beginning! My original point was the real-world statement that Magnus=The Master. Who else was the Doctor's good friend in Gallifrey who he had a falling out with? But, apparently a dream sequence in a continuity-error-riddled book beats a real world statement. Fine.

The new issue is that on The War Games page it states something to the effect of "Myths:The War Chief is an earlier incarnation of the Master. But novels have disproven this". except they haven't. As shown on the Magnus discussion page, there is nothing in Timewyrm:Exodus that does that. There is plenty in the Target novelisations(the bits that give background without contradicting) that make them out to be the same. All we have against it is the dream sequence in DL that has Koschei(a name the Second Doctor had never heard before in The Dark Path) and Magnus together. But does that by itself prove that K'Anpo and Cho Je are two different Time Lords. Does The Two doctors prove that Troughton and C Baker were playing different characters. No. And as noted, the Round 4 Part 3 both contains dream elements carrying over and hopelessly contradicts both established continuity and the DL book itself! Now here's something someone said earlier:

As far as contradictions in the valid sources goes, don't worry about it. It doesn't matter if the valid sources contradict one another, we just present the information. Just because there's contradictions doesn't mean we discount one source, and a contradiction doesn't mean source or another is invalid. As the valid sources states "The DWU has messy continuity. A story can't be declared invalid just because it contradicts other stories".

Now, here's some quotes from those Target Books(which five background without contradicting):

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”.

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 time-space machine. There is only one person you can be.’ ‘I had every right to leave,’ said the Doctor. ‘And to steal a TARDIS?’ The War Chief smiled. ‘Not that I am criticising you. I left our people too. We are two of a kind.’ ‘We most certainly are not!’ the Doctor protested. The War Chief shrugged. ‘Well, we were both Time Lords. Tell me, why did you decide to desert our kin?’ ‘I had reasons of my own. Rather different from yours, I imagine.’ ‘Probably they were. Why don’t you sit down?’

If ever he were caught, his fate would I be far worse than the Doctor’s exile. Once captured by the Time Lords, the Master’s life-stream would be thrown into reverse. Not only would he no longer exist, he would never have existed. It was the severest punishment in the Time Lords’ power. The Doctor knew that the Master’s presence on earth made matters far worse than he had feared. ‘You’re sure he’s here?’ he asked. The Time Lord nodded gravely. ‘We tracked him on the Monitor. Then there was some kind of alien interference and we lost contact.’

The Time Lord shook his head. ‘I’m afraid not, Doctor. As a matter of fact, I’ve come to bring you a warning, An old friend of yours has arrived on Earth.’ ‘One of our people? Who is it?’ The Time Lord pronounced a string of mellifluous syllables—one of the strange Time Lord names that are never disclosed to outsiders. Then he added, ‘These days he calls himself the Master.’

So, even if it's decided that the War Chief isn't the Master, tat "myth" and "there is evidence stating they aren't" should be removed. After all, one source(especially a dream-sequence in a continuity-error-full book) can not make the other invalid. Perhaps a change to something along the lines that he may be?41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 08:29, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to quote me as "someone" that said something "earlier" you can just refer to my discussion point above. This is a discussion, not an online message board.

I don't fully understand your point because you're making it really hard to understand.

As I have said above, please stop repeating information that's on the Magnus talk page, the dense text copied text is not helping your argument.

From the quote you've provided, Russell hasn't said that, he said Gray intended it and Russell cocked up it in the editing process. But what actually made it to print, that is what we use. Not what might have been, we also don't use deleted scenes to write in-universe articles either. But this isn't even that, it's something that was intended, but didn't make into print.

As to the Deca question. That discussion; Forum:How to handle the Deca has been waiting on you to continue to interact with the discussion process.

"Major" continuity errors don't invalidate a work. So, to answer your question yes. The information in a "continuity laden book" beats real world information. Divided Loyalties is not the only example of a continuity heavy book that contradicts what came before it.

Without any side references, without any points that other people have made, without any quotes to other things, please state, preferable in short bullet pointed sentences what you're actually arguing.

As at the moment all I have to go on is your initial statement at the top of the Magnus talk page and the citation of Russell's quote. I can't fathom why you're reeling off streams of novelisation info here, repeating what's on the Magnus talk page. Editors interested in this discussion will go to that talk page to see the information you're written there, or quite likely have already read the information there and followed the discussion here. --Tangerineduel / talk 09:32, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I stated it clearly and unambiguously above. If you honestly "don't fully understand", then perhaps someone who does should be the one responding to my posts? No offense, but I honestly don't know how I could have made that any simpler. 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 09:49, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Now, 41, let's be a little more respectful to the admin. If it turns out the messiness of this discussion is my fault by the way, I apologise. 41, I expected at one point to back you up, but you'll have to organise your points before I consider still doing that. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 12:23, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I've chosen not to involve myself in this debate simply because I haven't read any of the sources in question. But from my understanding, The Quantum Archangel(novel) has appearances by the Deca. Hopefully that might be able to shed some further light on the subject and help out. --Revan\Talk 12:58, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well, what does it say? That's why I posted all those "walls of text". because that's what it actually says in the relevant books, magazines etc. I haven't read Quantum Archangel. Does anyone have the actual passage(s)? 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 13:04, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from and see your clear points.

I take "above" means just below the summary section header, which is the only simple portion of your post not to have a large amount of copied text. The three numbered points left in your first post at 13:16, November 6, 2012.

Point 1, you state that Russell "and Warwick Scott Gray agreed that the Magnus in Flashback is The Master". But as the quote, that I have copied (unaltered) from the forum you provided clearly states it wasn't an agreement, Russell commissioned a strip from Gray.

Point 2, as I have already said is not relevant to this discussion (and have pointed towards where these discussions are, I won't repeat them here). Russell's comments do not concern the validity of the strip, he even acknowledges the character exists and used the character himself in his own work.

Point 3. I have already acknowledged that Russell's information is insightful enough that it should go on all three articles that are involved in this discussion; the Master's and the War Chief's (in the Behind the scenes sections) and in the Notes section of Flashback. That no media states they can't be the same character is not an argument for them to be the same character. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:12, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is relevant in as much as that you agree that Divided Loyalties contains multiple conitnuity errors, it can not be "definitive". And, of course, as you admit that nothing in any narrative prevents them being the same Time Lord...well then...

a)Why are there various "MYTH:The War Chief is The Master. But licensed narrative states explicitly that they aren't"? When you've just agreed that nothing of the sort exists. Does that necessarily mean that they ARE the same? No. But to unilaterally declare that they aren't it clearly a mistake.

b)The original discussion was about who MAGNUS was. Remember? So, as Divided Loyalties does not explicitly state that Magnus is the War Chief(the passage is on that discussion page), and as Divided Loyalties does not explicitly state that the Master can not be the War Chief.....who is Magnus? All we have is a non-narrative quote from Russell. Make of that what you will. 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 13:18, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I was actually calling out the ridiculousness of your proposal. You need to start with evidence to prove something, you can't start with a lack of evidence as proof. That would be like saying; the Doctor and the Rani are the same person, because there's nothing in any media that says they aren't, which proves they could be.

Divided Loyalties may contain multiple continuity problems, but that doesn't prove anything. There are hundreds more stories that contain far more, bigger and greater contradictions that Divided Loyalties does. Compared to say War of the Daleks (novel) it's tiny.

So no I do not believe that the fact that Divided Loyalties having perceived continuity problems is relevant to this discussion. In fact I don't believe it's relevant to any discussion that's not in the Howling.

The point in the myths section of The War Games states that the FASA Time Lord (role playing book) states is where the War Chief = the Master is from.

I thought you were arguing that Magnus/the War Chief was the Master? And I thought that the quote you provided from Russell and info in Divided Loyalties proves that the Magnus is the War Chief. Your initial heading to the Magnus discussion which said "Magnus is supposed to be The Master!" kinda suggested that was the main thrust of your argument.

Finally, if we're to get into the Divided Loyalties discussion, right near the end on page 247/8 there is an epilogue which in amongst it states that;

"Koschei who, after leaving Gallifrey to seek his fortune, came upon the DarkHeart, a malevolent force that was to imbue him with a new sense of direction." - Page 247

and

"Unlike Magnus, the only one of the Deca to leave Gallifrey and face a rather ignoble end. Obsessed with the Aliens and their war games, he fled his homeworld and joined them, offering his services to build TARDISes for them. [...] The War Lord, however, was not as foolish as he seemed, although he was prone to bouts of extreme paranoia. And it was in one of these moods that he had Magnus executed when the final war game scheme fell apart and the Time Lords finally carried out their threat of erasure." - Page 248

Both are fairly explicitly different people and referring to different events, The Dark Path (novel) and The War Games (TV story) and are presented separately with Mortimus' account being between these two. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:53, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

well now it's me who doesn't have any earthly clue what you are stating. Yes, originally the point was that Magnus is the Master, as Russell himself stated that was the intent, and when Flashback was published that was the understanding, as everyone who read that Special thought. But then someone said that is "non-narrative". And that being "non-narrative" was all that was required. Now, Divided Loyalties has more continuity errors than pretty much anything else ever. But even ignoring that...nowhere does it state in Divided Loyalties that Magnus is the War Chief. It is implied that he is, but in the same way it is implied that the Man with the Rosette is the Master. Or it is implied in the Target novelisations that the War Chief is the Master. Since,

Since, Mortimus' account is the one preceding Magnus, it is simple English that Magnus is unlike Mortimus, not unlike someone mentioned before that. So, all that shows is that Magnus isn't Mortimus.

Regardless of where that "myth" comes from, the point is that there's nothing that proves it is a myth! It doesn't matetr where it "comes from". There is no myth in the first place. Because there is nothing that proves it's a myth! According to you, there's nothing which proves it's true(eh?), but it shouldn't be there at all.

Yes, originally, the point was that Russell's real world quote showed that Magnus was designed as the Master. After being shouted down a s"non-narrative" and being told that implication isn't proof, I then used YOUR argument to show that there is nothing that proves the Master is NOT the War Chief, and there is NOTHING in-universe which explicitly states who magnus actually is. Someone already edited the Man with the Rosette article to state that it's implied he's The Master, rather than state outright he's the Master. Which wasn't my actual intention, but is the first step, I guess. 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 15:04, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and btw the FASA Role Playing Game doesn't state that the Master is the War Chief. In Book 2 of 3(the Sourcebook) its states the opposite. On pages 6 and 7 it lists the Master and the War Chief as two separate Time Lords. On page 17 it explicitly states that the Master is the Meddling Monk. Now, this wiki considers the FASA Game to be non-DWU. But the point is that people(including you) repeatedly state that the FASA Game says the Master is the War Chief. When it doesn't. In fact it states the complete opposite, yet you stated matter-of-factly that it said that. By the same token, people here have said for instance that "Timewyrm:Exodus proves that the War Chief isn't the Master" or "The War chief dies in Timewyrm:Exodus". Neither of those statements is true. Just like people say that Divided Loyalties proves that the Master isn't the War Chief or Divided Loyalties states that Magnus is the War Chief. Neither of those statements is true. I honestly wonder when people here cite books, games, comics, audios, tv shows whether they've actually read/watched/listened to them, or whether it's just something they heard somewhere. I haven't read the Quantum Archangel, so i admitted that. Rather than acting like an authority on something I've never read.

One take on it is this: Magnus isn't the Master or the War Chief. Why? Divided Loyalties never says he is either. And at the end of Divided Loyalties it explicitly states that he met an ignoble end, and was erased from ever having existed by the Time Lords. Magnus' activities with the War Lord in Divided Loyalties bear no resemblance to the War Chief's. And Divided Loyalties states that there were several different war games, not just the one seen on tv. The Flashback comic states that there is no chance of reconcilliation between The Doctor and Magnus. Going by a purely narrative in-universe manner(which you go far), the only rational explanation is that Magnus was another non-War Chief Time Lord, who had a falling out with the Doctor, left Gallifrey, worked with the War Lord(building TARDISes rather than SIDRATs), but was erased from history by the Time Lords. The war Chief presumably took up with the War Lord at a totally different time to Magnus, since from a purely in-universe, narrative perspectice they can't possibly be the same person. 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 16:03, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

It's a pretty obvious implication as my above citation proves. The above quotes from Divided Loyalties proves pretty well that Magnus is the War Chief and isn't the Master. It describes both The Dark Path and The War Games to a tee.

Reading the information from Divided Loyalties in context with other Doctor Who stories the only reading of them reveals that they are from and about the events of The Dark Path and The War Games.

Your "take" on it involves ignoring these stories and viewing Divided Loyalties in isolation, which it does not exist in. It is part of a greater series.

The myth can be removed from The War Games article, that isn't a huge issue.

Now, to be clear I did not state anything about the FASA game. I stated that The War Games articles currently states it. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:07, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Er, my point was that it doesn't describe the War games to a tee. Quite the opposite, in fact. besides Magnus(whoever he is) working for the War Lord(whose description in Divided Loyalties is nothing like the War Lord in the War Games) everything else is different. Significantly:

1)It is never stated in Divided Loyalties that Magnus is the War Chief. Your reasoning for not counting the Flashback Magnus as the Master was that it never explicitly states that to be the case. it is merely implied. And you stated that real -world behind-the-scenes things don't count, it must be in-universe narrative. And in-universe narrative it is NOT stated that Magnus is the War Chief. Please show me where in Divided Loyalties the words "War Chief" are used. I can't find them.

2)The Magnus who appears in Divided Loyalties has a totally different set of adventures with the War Lord(assuming it even is the same War Lord) to the War Chief in the War Games. Building TARDISes rather than SIDRATs, having a paranoid War Lord, organising multiple war games. And, by far the most important, being erased from ever having existed by the Time Lords at the end of this.

3)Clearly that's not the War Chief, as he survived HIS War Games, and went on to work with Hitler under an assumed name(Timewyrm:Exodus). HE wasn't erased from ever having existed. And nowehere in Timewyrm:Exodus is the name "Magnus" ever used. or the word "Deca". In fact, nowhere in the War Games are the words "Magnus" or "Deca" used either.

4)In the Flashback comic, the Doctor states that that incident was the last ever chance for reconcilliation between the Doctor and Magnus. Why? Because Magnus was erased from ever having existed not long after. Gary Russell was the Editor of Flashback, and the writer of Divided Loyalties. So he had control over both of Magnus' appearances. And he wrote a character with a totally different history to the War Chief. And again, it can't be retroactive continuity, because Divded Loyalties came out AFTER Timewyrm:Exodus.

Thus, Magnus can not possibly be the War Chief. Not the original thing I set out to show, but using this wiki's own rules, there is no other conclusion. 17:27, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Pure and simple speculation. 170.185.224.19^{talk to me} 18:36, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Which part is "pure and simple speculation"? Could you elaborate?

1)Nowhere is Divided Loyalties is the phrase "War Chief" ever used.

2)Divded Loyalties does not describe the War Games to a tee. Most notably, the fact that Magnus is erased from ever having existed by the Time Lords at a time that is prior to Timewyrm:Exodus

3)Gary Russell edited Flashback and wrote Divided Loyalties

4)Nowhere in Flashback is the phrase "War Chief" ever used either

5)Flashback states that there is no chance for a reconcilliation between Thete and Magnus

6)It is stated here that Narrative elements define biographies, anything else gets mentioned in "behind-the-scenes"

7)Someone already removed the Master part from the biography of the Man with the Rosette, because while it implies he's the Master, and while the writer stated that it's meant to be the Master....it is never explicitly stated that the Man with the Rosette IS the Master

8)My Master=War Chief quotes from the novelisations, and real-life were deemed not good enough, because while it actually describe the supposed two characters as being the same to a tee, it never states explicitly that they are the same in-narrative

9)Likewise real-world sources wouldn't count, except as behind-the-scenes

10)Therefore....Magnus is not the War Chief from a narrative perspective. Again, Where in Divided Loyalties(or anywhere else) does it unambiguously state that Magnus is the War Chief? 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 05:21, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

Okay. In one paragraph of no more than 5 short, non-bullet-pointed sentences please state your proposal. You (restarted) this page by saying "This started ..." What is this, precisely? What are you trying to get changed?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:31: Fri 09 Nov 2012

1)The original intention was rejected, as we have to go by narrative source, not real-world intentions, and not implications

2)There is nothing in a narrative sense that states unambiguously that Magnus is the War Chief(it's implied, but there are too many differences between the two, and it's never said outright in a way that is unambiguous)

3)There is nothing in a narrative sense that unambiguously states that Koschei/The Master can not also be the War Chief. True, there is nothing narrative that unambiguously states that they are the same Time Lord. But there is nothing narrative that makes rules out the possibility.

4)Just as the Man with the Rosette's article was changed to say that "behind-the-scenes" it was meant that he is The Master, while all narrative biography of him being the Master was removed...so Magnus/War Chief should be separated. There should be a separate Magnus article, with behind-the-scenes stating that he was meant to be the Master(in Flashback) and the War Chief(in Divided Loyalties). Magnus should also be mentioned in the behind-the-scenes of the War Chief and Master articles, but not included in the narrative biography proper

5)The Magnus, War Chief and Master articles should have behind-the-scenes references to the others. In particular, the War Chief and Master articles should have behind-the-scenes information, stating that some narrative implies that they are the same Time Lord, while other narrative implies that they are two different Time Lords. But this wiki should have no definite statement on the matter either way. Until a narrative element comes along definitively making a statement that is..... 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 05:15, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Still no idea what you're talking about. Point 1 is completely obscure. Still not getting what this has to do with Divided Loyalties. Come to the point, please. Assume I've read none of your previous comments, start over, keep it short, and don't bullet-point or number your paragraphs. Take one paragraph, 250 words max, and tell us simply what you want to change about this wiki.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  05:53: Sat 10 Nov 2012

??? What about the above don't you understand? Is English not your home language? "Point 1" was that I originally came here with real-world sources, as well as in-narrative sources that overwhelmingly implied something(but didn't state it 100% outright). But that was deemed not enough, as it needs to be a clear and unambiguous narrative element that is used for biographies/character histories etc. Any "Real-world" material can only be included in the "behind-the-scenes" section. Thus, using, purely narrative elements, there is nothing at all whatsoever that umambiguously states who "Magnus" is. We know who he's implied to be. But we need narrative elements. There is also nothing at all whatsoever that makes it impossible for the Master and the War Chief to be the same Time Lord. There is also nothing that unambiguously states they ARE the same. But there is nothing that means they can not be. Thus, any articles relating to these aspects need to be corrected. 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 06:32, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying that we have to say that the Master and the War Chief are the same character because nothing in-universe says they're not? By that logic, we could say that Rose is a chameleon arched version of the Rani. I mean, a chameleon arch changes a person's behavior as well as their genetics and the Rani could have regenerated before hand so she looks different. It has never been stated in universe that she is or isn't, and it is entirely possible for them to be or not to be the same person. However we do not go around adding "Rose and the Rani are the same person" to all relevant articles because the notion is completely absurd! Imamadmad ☎ 23:15, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you, 41. You clearly want something done around here, but you're not being very clear about what it is. The title of this thread is very ambiguous, and what you've said in your most recent post bears little relation to your initial point. I and others have asked you multiple times to clarify your position in simple language, but you haven't done it. Now, you've moved on to insulting me. Please be aware that we do have a strict policy against personal attacks, and you have just crossed it. I'm going to assume you're just frustrated because this is all perfectly clear in your mind. However, trust me: as someone who has read and determined the archive status for every single Panopticon thread ever written, I can safely say I've never seen anything quite this opaque.

I think the difficulty you're having is that you're assuming that we've all managed to connect the dots between Forum:How to handle the Deca, Talk:Magnus and points that you've made at Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2 and Talk:Season 18B.

Try simpler, more direct language.

Do use language like "I propose that <whatever>" or "I think <this thing here> should be changed because of <those reasons over there>."

Do give quotes of specific passages of existing text on the wiki that you think is wrong.

Don't assume your audience has read Divided Loyalties.

Don't assume your audience cares. Give us a compelling reason why this matters.

Consider breaking up your requests into discrete parts. Perhaps you should finish the discussion at Forum:How to handle the Deca, before moving to a discussion about a specific member of the Deca like Magnus.

I am interested in trying to figure out what you're trying to say. But it's been days now, and this thread is no closer to making a solid proposal. That needs to change quickly, or we're going to have to archive this thread and move on. Please make your next post to this thread a succinct one.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:34: Sun 11 Nov 2012

Trying not to care but could the point of this discussion be summed up as: Magnus, the War Chief, and the Master should be at three separate articles with behind-the-scenes notes indicating how they are connected by authors' intents. This is how the Man with the Rosette is handled. Only two stories refer to this Magnus and neither name him as somebody else. Divided Loyalties implies he is the War Chief but the continuity is so poor it is a bad fit. (Don't worry about Quantum Archangel. It doesn't mention WC or Magnus.) --65.24.187.122^{talk to me} 04:02, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 05:17, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

65.24.187.122 pretty much nailed it. Although I said the same thing. Basically, as with the Man with the Rosette, we know what the author's intent was, but nothing in-narrative ever states who Magnus is. Thus, Magnus should get his own article, with the behind-the-scenes stuff mentioning the author's intent. As far as the Master and the War Chief, again, there i nothing in-narrative that makes it impossible for them to be the same character. I never stated that the articles must be merged or anything like that. I merely stated that having someone state on The War Games article:"MYTH:The War Chief is The Master. Several licensed novels show they are not" is a mistake. They should remain separate articles. But any definite statements about whether they are or aren't the same should be removed. There should however, be "behind-the-scenes" information added. 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 05:35, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

There we go. Now I think the proplem here is that DL clearly hinted him to be the War Cheif, didn't it? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 05:39, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

As I said upthread, statement in the Myths section of The War Games is easily excised, if someone could find a source for the myth that'd be nice and we could just leave it at that as a statement that there was a myth/fan theory. Otherwise it can be removed.

@65.24 bad continuity does not exclude a source, otherwise we'd be ignoring Blood Harvest and The Eight Doctors (which undermine each other's continuity) and War of the Daleks (which retcons every Dalek TV story), then there's Lungbarrow and every new series story that mentions youth on Gallifrey and the list goes on.

@41.133 Coming at the discussion from the side that "there is nothing in-narrative that makes it impossible to be the same character" is ludicrous. As I and Imamadmad have said above that's using the lack of proof as proof. As I have shown above with 2 quotes from Divided Loyalties it's pretty clear that the Master and Magnus are separate people, and that Magnus is the War Chief.

Divided Loyalties does more than hint, as, again is shown in the quote upthread it basically summarises The War Games saying that Magnus was the one involved. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:06, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me again. I never said there was narrative proof that the Master is the War Chief. I said there is no narrative proof that the Master is not the War Chief. Two separate things. Divided Loyalties doesn't make it clear that Magnus is the War Chief. It implies it is the War Chief. The same way that Henrietta Street implies that the man with the rosette is the Master. And, using your logic, we should edit the Mindgame and Ace articles to say that Ace was in Mindgame. Because that's clearly what is implied. Though it is never stated outright. Divided Loyalties says that Koschei is the Master. It implies that magnus is the War Chief. Major difference. Or in The Hollows of Time, Professor Stream was written as the Master. However, in the finished version it never states that he is The Master. So he is just "Professor Stream". "The Man With The Rosette" is just that, nothing more. Sophie Aldred's character in Mindgame is just "Human". So why try and make Magnus the War Chief, when it never actually confirms that, merely suggests it? 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 07:20, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

To summarise again:The author's real-world intentions are not used for the biography/character information, only for the "behind-the-scenes". Sp...first the words "War Chief: are never used in either Flashback or Divided Loyalties. Secondly, read the War Chief's background/motivation on page 187 of Timewyrm:Exodus. Now read Magnus' background/motivation in Divided Loyalties. That's not "just a continuity error". That's two totally separate characters. Now remember that the War Chief survived The War Games, and went on to Timewyrm:Exodus. Magnus didn't survive his time with "the war lord"(who is described totally differently to the War Lord from the War Games), and was erased from ever having existed. Thus, Magnus, whoever he was, could no possibly have gone on to work with Hitler. The only similarity is that both Magnus and the War Chief were known to work with "war lords". First, we have no way of knowing whether they were even the same war lords. Secondly, the Doctor and the Master both worked for UNIT. The Doctor and Romana both worked for the Guardian. The Monk and the Master both worked with the Daleks. What does that prove? Two different Time Lords both working for the same people/organisation does not mean that those two Time lords are the same Time Lord. And, judging by the description in Divided Loyalties, it doesn't even sound as though the people Magnus worked with were even the same people the War Chief worked with. Magnus, of Flashback(comic) and Divided Loyalties, who went and played with a race devoting themselves to war was, in fact, a completely different person to the War Chief.41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 08:32, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

There is a greater amount of proof the states that Magnus is the War Chief than your above examples.

In the above quote, from Divided Loyalties, based on what we know of the War Games, the person "Magnus" can't be anyone other than the War Chief. This isn't the same as the Man with the Rosette, where it's actually very vague about who he is, or who "Human" in Mindgame is.

In Divided Loyalties we are presented in-narrative with what is essentially a plot summary of The War Games with the name "Magnus" at the start.

On its own, on that quote above alone, you might not be able to directly attribute the War Chief = Magnus, but looking at it in addition to other sources, like The War Games, the information presented between these two leaves little doubt that the War Chief and Magnus are the same person. We use Divided Loyalties as a starting point and then corroborate that information with other sources of in-narrative information. With your examples there are none to support their implications.

We only have the information of the DWU to work with, and there is only one "War Lord", we only have one example of a Time Lord building TARDISes for aliens, based on this information combined with The War Games it can't be any other person.

As far as real world information, as I've continued to say it's interesting, but before you began this discussion I didn't know anything about the real world info and for the most part I've based my discussion on what's in-narrative. The behind the scenes info is an interesting side-note to the discussion. --Tangerineduel / talk 09:38, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. It never states in Divided Loyalties, or any other narrative source, that Magnus is the War Chief. All we have are some similarities. In fact, if you watch The War Games, read Timewyrm:Exodus, and then read Divided Loyalties, you come away with the feeling that they're two similar, yet essentially different characters. But, either way, there's nothing at all that explicitly and unambiguously states that "Magnus is the War Chief". There is some hinting, there are some similarities and also some MAJOR differences. And, going by your reasoning, I suggest you go and read the first chapter of "Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon".... 41.133.0.18^{talk to me} 10:06, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

So, as I read what you've said lately in this thread, I'm given to understand that this isn't really a policy matter, right? This is just you trying to bounce ideas off the community to help you clarify the content of certain articles in the main namespace. Despite the fact that you've been dropping in veiled references to problems you've had with site policy in the past, you're now actually trying to work within T:VS to rewrite articles you think are in violation of those policies. Have I read you correctly?

If that's what's going on, you probably wanted to be in Forum:Reference desk rather than Forum:Panopticon. This forum is for changing policy and the sort of "meta" issues that arise in the practical administration of a wiki. The reference desk is for asking about the narratives themselves.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:44: Wed 14 Nov 2012

First, you yourself were the one who said this discussion belongs here. Second, I'm not "bouncing off" anything. As has been stated several times(and you appear to be the only one who is unaware of this) I did originally provide a real-world source about a character. In addition the story featuring that character strongly implied who he was. I was told that real-world sources, as well as something merely being implied doesn't count. It needs a clear and unambiguous narrative connection. I then said "But there is no clear and unambiguous narrative connection in Divided Loyalties between the War Chief and Magnus". That's it. You have already moved the discussion from another place to here, and now you wish to move it again. Only after much trying to confuse the issue. Just when it appears that some sort of clear understanding is about to be reached, you appear and say "Oh no. This should have been in [forum x] all along" And then everyone is told to start from square one again, but explicitly told not to make any posts that were already made, while at the same time, not making any references to posts that were already made. I am sick and tired of this now, I have tried to work within your system, using your rules, your wiki policies. But now I see why so many people don't even try in the first place This whole thing has been an exercise in futility. Every time I produce what you're looking for, you change your mind, and say the discussion needs to be moved somewhere else. This is a complete and utter waste of time and effort. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.133.0.18 (talk). '

None of us have ever had any idea what you were talking about. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 05:16, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with User:OttselSpy25 here. This is definitely not an easy discussion to follow. Imamadmad ☎ 05:28, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

I regret that you're frustrated, 41. My role here is not that of a roadblock. I've been desperately trying to help you frame your argument in a way that makes sense to other users. As can be evidenced by the above two comments, you haven't done that.

I think the biggest problem you're having is that you are not actually answering the questions posed to you. For instance, in your response to my earlier comments today, I asked you twice whether this was a policy matter, and you never answered that directly. Your answer to a yes/no question was to complain about the question.

As for the implications of this discussion potentially being in the "wrong" forum, you're being well over-dramatic. All that means is that we'd change the template at the very top of this page to read {{forumheader|reference desk}}. That's it. It wouldn't require a frustrating "restart".

And as I recall, what I actually advised you to do was to finish the discussion at Forum:How to handle the Deca. I believe I said something like, "once you decide how to handle the Deca, you'll understand more about the Magnus situation." I also thought, at the time, that you were trying to use this case to speak to policy, which would have made this the appropriate forum. But, and you've still not absolutely confirmed this, it now appears that you're merely talking about content, which is a matter for the reference desk. The reason it's important to choose the right forum is that it helps other users understand the broad context of your question.

Overall though the entire problem with all of this is that you've stubbornly avoided asking a question. You just info-dumped a theory, with no particular application of that theory in sight. It took another anonymous user to finally bring some sort of clarity to this thread.

It's unfortunate that you're frustrated with this process. All I can say is that it's worked since 2005. Hundreds of questions have been asked and answered in these forums. Sometimes people have gotten frustrated with the fact that they've had to wait for a few days for obvious things to be resolved. But I've never seen anyone completely miss the point of forum communication quite the way you have. All that's required for successful use of the forums is to ask simple questions, then directly answer those questions that others pose to you. The reason you've been unsuccessful in your attempts is that you haven't done that.

Communication is not the same as info-dumping. It's listening to what other parties have to say and directly addressing them. It's phrasing things so as to influence action. It's not only having an idea for change, but also crafting your words so as to achieve that change. That's why, as I've tried to point out to you, your first post should be something along the lines of "I think <this situation here> should be changed because of <that situation there>" or "One of our articles says <this thing here>, but I've read <this bit there> so should we change our approach to our article?"

What's even weirder to me is that you know this. Take a look at your other thread, Forum:How to handle the Deca. Your first post there is very clear. You describe what the discussion is about and you say very clearly what you're proposing. I don't really understand why you're so vague in this thread, and why you've obstinately refused to give a clear statement of purpose here, despite being offered multiple chances to restart the thread.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  15:05: Wed 14 Nov 2012

No. You are making hollow personal insults. The only problem here is that you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. This started out as a simple discussion which stated that the name "Magnus" was originally applied to a character in Flashback(comic) who both the editor and the actual writer unambiguously stated was The Master. However, you rejected that, as "only narrative elements count".

Fine, if that's the way this works. I then pointed out, that using only narrative elements there is nothing conclusive in "Divided Loyalties" who states who this particular "Magnus" really is. Author Gary Russell stated in a real-world interview that "Magnus" is supposed to be The War Chief. However, he also(as noted earlier) stated that "Magnus" in Flashback(comic) is supposed to be The Master? It is sort of implied in Divided Loyalties that this "Magnus" is The War Chief, however there is nothing that explicitly states that fact, merely some similarities(and also a lot of differences). So, your response to that was to a)say "Where? Say what is says" and b)lock the original thread, and say "Star again", c)Pretend like you don't understand what I mean,

So, I did cite the relevant passages, as well as relevant passages from several other episodes, books etc. that flatly contradict Divided Loyalties. Those other sources are all consistent with each other, yet contradict the later-written Divided Loyalties. Your response? Make insulting comments about how "stubborn and "obstinate" I am, and say "don't infodump". However, this so-called "infodumping" was precisely what I was told to do! Just like I was specifically told to start this new discussion here, only to now be told it's the wrong place. I notice you have also made some inaccurate edits to the locked "The Master" article, which shows that you either haven't actually read a word of what either I or various authors have actually put down or b)you couldn't care less about the actual Doctor Who lore/continuity, and only wish to push your own personal canon.

To sum up:a)there is NOTHING in Divided Loyalties that states "Magnus is the War Chief" b)the FASA GAme doesn't actually say what you claim it does b)Divided Loyalties is so riddled with continuity errors, that to cherry-pick one implied statement, while willfully ignoring everything else is totally point-of-view, and not in keeping with a supposed source of information d)there are countless narrative sources which make it overwhelmingly obvious that the Master is the War chief. Do any of them ever state "The Master is The War Chief" in those exact words? No. Do they all make it far more clear than your ONE muddled "Anti-source" in DL? Absolutely. However, I'm sure you're going to insult me about "walls of text", being "obstinate", say this is the wrong forum, and possibly add some line to The Master article about how Terror of the Autons explicitly says the Master knows the War Chief as a separate Time Lord, and how the Doctor and the Master haven't seen each other since they both left Gallifrey. My only concern is that some people may come to this wiki looking for genuine information about Doctor Who, and may believe some of the falsehoods that are all over this wiki.

I'll let others be the judge of which of us has actually hurled insults in this thread. What I care about is understanding you and helping you express your concerns in a way that other people can comment upon them productively.

So far, I count at least five people in this thread who have no clear idea what you're talking about: me, user:Tangerineduel, User:Shambala108, User:Imamadmad and User:OttselSpy25. At least one other person, user:170.185.224.19, seems to have divined your intent, but labelled it "pure speculation". Only one person responding to this thread has seemingly understood you and refactored things in a form that you agreed with.

If six people either don't understand you or don't agree with you, you have failed to make your case. By any objective measure, the consensus of this thread is that we don't know what the heck you're talking about. It's not my failure, it's not Tangerineduel's failure: it's six people independently arriving at the conclusion that, as OS25 said, "None of us have ever had any idea what you were talking about".

I'm gonna give you one more shot, and if you don't give us something we can work with, I'm locking the thread and throwing away the key, because whatever it is you're trying to say, you have zero consensus to proceed.

Please explicitly answer these questions, and keep your answers brief.

1. Are you trying to change some policy of this wiki? If so, what is that policy?
2. Is the following statement an accurate and complete statement of what you're trying to accomplish: "Magnus, the War Chief, and the Master should be at three separate articles with behind-the-scenes notes indicating how they are connected by authors' intents."

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  01:49: Sun 25 Nov 2012

41: Basically, as I see it, people aren't confused about the fact that you believe the Master and the War Chief are the same character, but everyone is confused about what you want to do about it. Well, that's my confusion anyway. There's no point in deciding a piece of information is right, or at least not wrong, if we can't do anything with it. This forum is aimed at understanding and changing wiki policy and the way articles are edited. So, if we agree (I'm not saying we are, but if) that the two characters are not not the same person, how can we use that information on this wiki? If it's just to edit the BTS sections of a couple of articles to say, while citing sources, that some stories suggest a connection between the characters, well, what's stopping you from doing that. As long as it's in the behind the scenes section and properly sourced, I can see any problem with the information. But discussing it further seems to suggest you want to do more with the info. Is this the case? If so, what do you want to do with it. If not, well, I personally think we're done here. Imamadmad ☎ 12:25, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

@czechout

1)I was told to come to this page. If this should be on separate "policy" page, nobody made that clear until well into this discussion. The only "policy" I m attempting to change is to the way certain articles are written.

2)Yes, as nothing in either "Flashback" or "Divided Loyalties" ever explicitly states who Magnus is.

2b)In addition, other behind-the-scenes information should include who characters were supposed to be, eg. The Man with the Rosette was intended to be The Master

2c)You have edited several articles to state that "Several novels explicitly state that the Master is not the War Chief" Could you provide a list of which novels, and where they say that?

...So, yes, using this wiki's policies, the articles Magnus, The War Chief and The Master should be three separate articles, although there must be behind-the-scenes information giving author's intent. 41.133.1.212^{talk to me} 14:13, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so this whole thing was about confirming policy, not changing it? Generally, people don't start discussions in which they argue agreement with policy. If all you were doing was saying, "according to a, b and c narratives, x, y and z things are true, then you needn't have discussed that with anyone. That's just called, writing an article. Your tone throughout has suggested — and this is what I and a lot of people seem to think is confusing — that you were using this case of Magnus to grumble about policy. Or to seek permission. Or something other than, "I think the article should be written in this way because of these facts. What do the rest of you think?" Your tone here has been quite different than at Forum:How to deal with the Deca, and it's that difference which has caused confusing. I think we've all believed there was something of policy substance at the centre of this particular Tootsie-Pop — and it turns out there's nothing, really.

As for 2c), I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I've not specifically edited any article as to that point. It's possible that some articles that I've edited have included that point, but I've not been the originator of such information. I don't even know which are the "several articles" to which you refer. It's a convention of Wiki editing that only the differences between edits (diffs) are that to which any particular editor can lay claim.

If you're speaking of The Master do remember that this article's current base was written at The Master/Rewrite, which was largely assembled by others from the constituent "Master (incarnation)" series. So, yes, there's a point at which I imported /Rewrite into the main article, but that was purely technical. I wasn't "vouching" for any of the information, and hadn't even read it at that point, frankly. I was just accepting the community's months' long work as a starting point.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  18:03: Wed 28 Nov 2012

First, as far as "permission" or "policy" I did attempt to edit one other page, but was told that this needed a discussion, and I was redirected here. Next, is it really necessary for you to use phrases like "grumble", "Toostie-Pop" and "there's nothing, really"?

Again, the discussion is about articles. When I have attempted have discussions of the relevant article's talk page, someone has immediately said "Go to the forum for changing policies". So here we are, and now you're making insults because I'm on the forum for changing policies!

But the point is, does anyone have any relevant comments about the Magnus page, The War Chief page, The Master page? 41.133.1.212^{talk to me} 05:28, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

As much as I'm loathed to repeat myself…up thread I provided fairly inarguable proof that the Magnus is the War Chief, before 41.133 shouts me down on that point, I will also refer to a previous discussion regarding speculation, Forum:Speculation - What is and what isn't?.

And to quote CzechOut from that thread

"Authors don't need to spoon feed us a lot of exposition for us to come to a reasonable conclusion of what they're talking about. Do they? Isn't there a place for the sly reference and the well-written background note?"

In Divided Loyalties, page 248, it's not even a sly reference or background note. It states quite clearly that Magnus was the one who went and worked with the War Lords, then gives a summary of The War Games. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:07, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the description there is significantly different to The War Games. And Divided Loyalties also tells us(p96) that only people who have the "Rassilon Imprimature" can travel in time, control a TARDIS, and regenerate. It then later(p248) tells us that neither the Doctor nor the Master ever got that "Rassilon Imprimature".

But that's not the point. Again, as I have stated many times before. Read Chapter 1 of Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon. Here we learn that there have only been two TARDISes stolen up to that point(one by the Doctor, and one by the Master). The Master was involved with There were tens of thousands of humans from the planet Earth, stranded on another planet where they thought they were re-fighting all the wars of Earth’s terrible history., but The Doctor interrupted that by alerting the Time Lords....Terrance Dicks' "Terror of the Autons tells us that the Doctor and The Master met recently before 'Autons', that "The Master" is a new name(ie. he had another name when he last met the Doctor), that he had been manipulating wars, that the Master's accomplices had had their life-streams thrown into reverse. Not only did they not exist, they never would have existed. The Doctor is surprised to hear that the Master had a working TARDIS when they met, and the Master was at the same place the Doctor was when the Doctor was captured, only the Master got away. The actual tv serial shows us that they have both regenerated since their last recent meeting. The Doctor also mentions that he has seen the Master's powers of hypnotism, but that he has seen strong-willed people offer resistance to it. The novelisation of the War Games has the War Chief know for a fact that the "traveller in a time-space machine" MUST be the Doctor, as they are the only two renegade Time Lords. It also tells us that the War Chief and the Doctor were once friends. TV's Frontier In Space(Episode 4) shows us that The Master knows the events of the War Games. And, although you don't like real-world sources, it still must be said that Malcolm Hulke(who wrote the War Games and three Delgado stories) explicitly stated that during his era there were only two renegade Time Lords, the Doctor and the Master.

That is actually spoonfeeding. There is no way around that, except maybe to ignore it, as others have done. Note also, that the comic "Flashback" was written as a Master origin story. In fact the Marvel Encyclopedia lists it using those exact words. However, many people identified the similarity between Magnus(the pre-Delgado Master) and...the War Chief. Both Gary Russell and Warwick Scott Gray stated that it was, indeed, a Master origin story.

On the other side, we have a dream sequence in a novel that also tells us such fascinating facts as the "Rassilon Imprimature" one above, that Mortimus was at the Academy with the Doctor, and left Gallifrey BEFORE the Doctor, that the Rani left Gallifrey of her own accord(thereby nullifying the whole motivation behind the character in the first place, see "Mark of the Rani"), that the FIFTH Doctor finds out the Toymaker's origin(making the Sixth Doctor in the Nightmare Fair a complete imbecile)...and oh yeah read Timewyrm:Exodus where Kriegslieter explains his reason for leaving Gallifrey. Now read Divided Loyalties where Magnus explains his reasons for leaving Gallifrey. They're 100 per cent different.

So, AGAIN, people are ignoring ALL the evidence in the Target books and the actual TV EPISODES. People are ignoring the dozens of continuity errors throughout Divided Loyalties(that must actually place it in its own self-contained continuity). However, they are slavishly sticking to the idea that "Koschei is the Master, Magnus if the War Chief. Therefore it's two people". As I stated elsewhere, this is cherrypicking. And it is totally inconsistent, and utterly improper for what is supposed to be a factual bank. 41.133.1.212^{talk to me} 08:08, November 29, 2012 (UTC)