Talk:First Doctor

	Archives: #1, #2, #3

Picky picky picky

This page appears to be very biased against the books of Doctor Who. It references sources with the phrase "One account..." starting it off for no reason. I noticed it did such with a statement about the group he was in in collage, despite the fact that no source suggests that he WASN'T in such group. I don't think it's enough to add the cleanup template,but it does need to wb remedied. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:35, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. It's not a matter of being biased against the books. It's a matter of marking those things which are noted in one book, but contradicted or completely unremarked elsewhere. We use the phraseology "according to one sourse" or "one account claimed" to indicate a truth: this statement has factually been mentioned by only one source. This is important, because it lets readers know that the statement may not have widespread applicability across several stories. Its usage is not limited to statements derived from books, and indeed can be used to highlight contradictions that are inherent in the televised stories, as well.

Please do not edit such statements, unless you can prove that the statement does not come from just one source.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 16:43: Wed 29 Feb 2012 

I think you Mis-understand what I meant. It makes sense to me to use the "one account" statement when contradiction exsists, but when it dosen't, there is no use on the term. At one point, hits article used the opening to describe that the Doctor belonged to the house of the Lungbarrow, without showing suggestion that this has any contradiction. It would be like if I were to post this on the page,

According to one account, the Doctor and the Master were in a band of Gallifrey. (PROSE: Deadly Reunion)

In such's case, I provided no evidence that the Master and the Doctor WERE NOT in band on Gallifrey from another story, so there is no point in my "According to one account" interjection. This was my argument above. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 20:27, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Nope, didn't misunderstand you. There's nothing factually inaccurate about the statement you've given. You're inferring something the phrase doesn't actually imply. I think you believe it means something negative. It doesn't. It means that the fact which follows it occurs in only one narrative. That's a neutral statement. The point of the phrase is to alert the reader that the statement appears in only one place. There's nothing wrong with that construction. How else are you going to indicate that sentiment? Just making a statement and ending it with a citation doesn't mean that the statement was only given in that one source. For instance,

The Doctor had stolen a TARDIS. (TV: The Big Bang)

does not mean that the only place you will find that information is The Big Bang. The only real way to say "it only happened in this one story" is to, well, come out and say it. But just because you say "according to one account", that doesn't mean it's invalid. It just means it's obscure. For instance, there's a bit at the beginning of the Susan Campbell article from Roses, which explains that Susan's real Gallifreyan name is "Rose". I absolutely adore that fact. It's not contradicted anywhere. I think it's rock solid true. But I still put an "according to one source" construction around it, because it comes from the decidedly obscure source of a Brief Encounter.

And this is a usage I often employ: info that is rather far away from anything televised can usefully take the "according to" treatment, under the assumption that most readers will never have encountered the fact. By using the "according to" phraseology, readers will then understand why they haven't heard it, either. It's not at all bias against the novels, as you've alleged. Rather, it's helping the average reader of the site not feel like an idiot for not having read Roses or something equally obscure.

Of course, it's most often used when there are multiple accounts of the same fact, but it doesn't have to be. If I say:

According to Sarah Jane Smith, the sonic lipstick came from the Doctor.

that doesn't mean she's lying. I'm just giving a specific source for the information that helps the reader tie down that fact. If you read into that a possibility of deception or ignorance — that is, if you believe that statement means that SJS is stupid for believing that — that's kinda your own problem. Just pointing out the source of information doesn't have any implications for the veracity of the info.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 14:38: Sun 04 Mar 2012 

Michael Gough?

When did Michael Gough voice the Doctor?Retsinif ^{talk to me} 15:34, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

The Celestial Toymaker. --24.60.0.191^{talk to me} 17:50, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Could you please go into more detail?Retsinif ^{talk to me} 18:33, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

In the final scene of the story, the Doctor has to send the game he and the Toymaker are playing to the end from inside the TARDIS. In order to do this, he has to imitate the Toymaker's voice, which he does, but it is obviously just Gough's voice dubbed over. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:50, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

But he isn't playing the Doctor, it's the Doctor impersonating the toymaker. I mean: are we going to start saying Nick Courtney played the Master because the Master impersonated him on phone in The Time Monster and the line was dubbed by Nick? No! That would be utterly idiotic, just as it is to claim Gough played the Doctor. 219.90.168.137^{talk to me} 13:55, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

So are you arguing that it wasn't Gough playing the doctor, it was Gough playing the doctor impersonating the Doctor. Well, it's still Gough voicing the Doctor. And yes, if there is a provable instance of what you just said, it needs to added to the actors list. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 16:33, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

But surely he was still playing the Toymaker's voice, even if the Doctor was speaking it, it wasn't the Doctor's own voice so he can't really be considered to have played the Doctor. 219.90.232.164^{talk to me} 05:34, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

No... It was the Doctor doing a perfect imitation of the Toymaker. It wasn't the toy aker at all. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 14:35, April 25, 2012 (UTC)