Talk:Archibald Hamish Lethbridge-Stewart

Relation to the Lethbridge-Stewart family

The edits regarding Archibald Hamish being brother to Alistair Gordon's grandfather keep being undone. I haven't actually read the book in question but there seems to be pretty sound in-universe and out-of-universe sources that were provided. I was wondering if anyone could further elaborate on this? --Borisashton ☎ 12:50, December 27, 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that only in-universe sources can be used by T:IU. Amorkuz ☎ 12:55, December 27, 2017 (UTC)

Archibald was named as brother of the Brig's grandfather in one of the books in-universe (and the tweet from Haisman estate merely confirmed that he's supposed to be the same Archibald as the one in the episode), and you also removed the behind the scenes section, which explains the issue out of universe while not claiming to be an IU explanation. What was the reason for that? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by JagoAndLitefoot (talk • contribs) . 13:05, December 27, 2017 (UTC)

Oops, that edit clearly did not go as planned. Thanks for alerting me about the issue. Let me get to a computer and return everything back. Amorkuz ☎ 13:26, December 27, 2017 (UTC)

Hamish?

Since I accidentally got muddled into this anyways, maybe I can do something good by starting an actual discussion of the issue at hand, instead of everyone going back and forth between edits. So the current situation seems to be, in simple terms (for simplicity I will use copyright holders instead of people to describe the situation):

1. BBC intended him to be a grandfather but never stated it in-universe, meaning it is not allowed on pages outside of BTS sections;
2. Haisman/Lincoln Estate does not agree to him being a grandfather, pointing out that Alan Barnes already created one paternal grandfather in Doctor Who Magazine (see comic story The Warkeeper's Crown);
3. Haisman/Lincoln have their own Lethbridge-Stewart character named "Archibald", who is a brother of the said paternal grandfather;
4. Haisman/Lincoln claim that BBC used their particular Archibald.

The current state of the page reflects the out-of-universe claim 4 but not the out-of-universe claim 1. The latter is how it should be, of course. Which brings me to a question: what is the in-universe evidence that the "Archibald Hamish" from BBC is the "Archibald" from Haisman/Lincoln. First and foremost, is the middle name "Hamish" present in any Lethbridge-Stewart stories? Amorkuz ☎ 00:19, December 28, 2017 (UTC)

The primary in-universe evidence: Both had the first name "Archibald" and the last name "Lethbridge-Stewart". Both were of the correct age to have been a father during WWI. And that's it ... but then again, that's practically all we know about either character. I think if there is actually an Archibald Lethbridge-Stewart mentioned in a Lethbridge-Stewart novel, it would be rather unreasonably reductive to insist that they're separate characters. Given the aforementioned in-universe evidence, I think it'd actually be more speculatory to say that the LS-series character didn't have the middle name Hamish ... next you'll be telling me Kate Lethbridge-Stewart isn't Kate Lethbridge-Stewart! – N8 ☎ 02:11, December 28, 2017 (UTC)

Not just the Brigadier himself but all Lethbridge-Stewart derivative characters are used by the BBC under license from Haisman/Lincoln. I would imagine that Moffat originally wrote the episode with the Brig's grandfather in mind, but Haisman/Lincoln, probably having some input as license holders, did not allow him to call the character the Brig's grandfather explicitly because the Brig's grandfather was already established differently in other stuff they officially license. If the copyright holders actually state that the two Archibalds are the same person, I see no reason to assume they aren't, as that's more than we got for Kate Stewart (we could just as well assume the Brig had two different daughters named Kate). JagoAndLitefoot ☎ 02:36, December 28, 2017 (UTC)

The reason I came to this page was originally because Borisashton seemed to suggest there was a budding edit war. My duty is to prevent it. As is clearly stated in Tardis:Valid sources, only stories count. This is further explained:

Most obviously, the thoughts of someone on the production team can't be used to write an in-universe article.T:VS

Thus, whatever Gatiss, Moffat or Frankham-Allen says absolutely cannot be used for editing, though of course has to be dutifully recorded in the BTS section.

Unfortunately, the argument "I see no reason to assume" is not going to help stop edit wars. The fact that the information was being erased means that other editors did see such a reason. Given this difference of opinions, the best way of resolving it is to first collect all in-universe data and then, based on it, make a responsible decision. It is our responsibility to leave a record of how this clearly controversial issue was resolved. And the lazy way out of basing this decision on sources expressly prohibited by the policies is not an option. Nate might of course be right in that we don't find anything. But we will have shown due diligence. And then, knowing this is all we have to work with, a decision can be made. (Maybe by that time, Hamish will appear as a middle name in the next Lethbridge-Stewart story and the problem will be solved.:))

Let me also explain why I would hesitate to equate Archibald Hamish with Archibald from the get-go. This is a family with Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart being a different person from Alistair Lethbridge-Stewart. In other words, we have in-universe evidence that it was not uncommon for members of this family to be distinguished by an extra middle name.

Finally, while Nate might be right, as I said, there is hope. There is sadly not much added to the wiki about Archibald pre-Christmas special. But I found a user who made some promising edits. At Special:Diff/2437254 and Special:Diff/2437648 they added info from quite an unexpected source, The Wages of Sin, a PDA novel from 1999. I've already contacted them and asked to provide exact quotes and, hopefully, more information about Archibald. So stand by for further news. Amorkuz ☎ 10:23, December 29, 2017 (UTC)

The Wages of Sin only contains this passage, not naming the Brig's grandfather at all:

The Doctor’s statement surprised Jo. She hadn’t thought the Brigadier was much of a history buff. Except for military history, at least. ‘The Brigadier? But how could he know?’ ‘Because his grandfather worked with Stopford in Military Intelligence just before and during the First World War, up until the Revolution.’T:VS

That makes him sound like a totally different person to me. --Revan\Talk 17:09, December 29, 2017 (UTC)

In-universe info from TUaT

While still not much, there was one not entirely generic marker in the Christmas Special. So here is all the info from Twice Upon a Time that I could find:

• The Captain is a British captain participating in World War I at Ypres on 25 December 1914, during the Christmas truce.
• He has a wife who is a "remarkably solid" woman, whatever that means.
• He has at least two sons because he refers to them as "boys". It is perhaps a safe bet to infer that he has no daughters as he recounts everyone who would miss him.
• His family lives in Cromer.

The last one appears to be the most promising lead. The exact phrase is [speaking of his imminent death on the battlefield] "Big shock for everyone back in Cromer of course." The immediately following question of Glass Bill about the family leaves no doubt that "Cromer" referred to them. Amorkuz ☎ 17:01, December 29, 2017 (UTC)

A relevant quote from What's Past is Prologue, featuring grandpa Alistair Lethbridge-Stewart and his brother Archibald, in-continuity with Night of the Intelligence:

• • Alistair tried not to smile – he had discipline to instill – but couldn't help himself. His brother's smile was infectious. 'How was the trip, Archie?'
  • 'Somewhat busy when we changed trains in London, but at least the sky is brighter here. Raining non-stop in Cromer...'

That's a check mark for the most promising lead! – N8 ☎ 19:21, December 29, 2017 (UTC)

Check mark for Cromer it is. The resemblance is, in fact, slightly better than that: "A man with a moustache was standing there, his civilian overcoat and scarf not hiding his military bearing." I know, of course, that most men wore moustache at the time. But still it is another match (and quite soon after Ypres seemingly). So to me, this serves as a sufficient proof that Archibald and Archibald Hamish are the same person. (Even though, with all due respect to him, I struggle to imagine Gatiss's smile to be infectious. It must be the roles he usually plays.)

But it's even better than that. I was just going to say that Archibald as the Brig's grandfather goes the same way as The Woman (The End of Time) as the Doctor's mother when suddenly... Thanks to a Christmas present from Candy Jar Books, Andy Frankham-Allen and David A. McIntee, we fans are treated to some holiday bliss. We can set our differences aside and enjoy this improvisational duet of BBC and Candy Jar Books (or maybe it's a chess match, I don't know). Here is the relevant quote:

Alistair bristled at his brother’s focus on Gordon. Looking from one to the other it was plain to see that they were the spit of each other… And still Gordon did not know.What's Past is Prologue

To the best of my understanding, Gordon is the father of Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart. I wouldn't treat this as anything definitive, mind. But it certainly opens up possibilities for an in-universe continuity that is not at odds with what one can hear in interviews. As an admin, I don't care since those interviews are irrelevant. But as a fan, I rejoice at the ability not to be torn internally. Hope others will enjoy this too. And bravo, Candy Jar. Amorkuz ☎ 21:00, December 29, 2017 (UTC)

Grandfather

This is ridiculous. The Captain is the Brigadier's grandfather because Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat say so. Moffat is the writer of the episode, therefore his word should be final. Unfortunately it wasn't confirmed in the episode but it seems silly to override a television character background with that of a PROSE character which isn't even confirmed to be the same character. Mysterious Editor ☎ 19:38, December 30, 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you are new to the wiki. So, as an admin, I would like to point you and other new users of our wiki to the applicable policies. First of all, all media are equal per Tardis:Neutral point of view. Quite literally, "television episodes are not "better sources" than comic strips or audios" or short stories. Secondly, opinions voiced by anyone about the episode cannot be used to edit pages per Tardis:In-universe perspective. Again, the relevant quote is: "Material from reference works, deleted scenes, or documentaries can only go in "behind the scenes" sections." Please, base your edits on these and other relevant policies. Amorkuz ☎ 19:46, December 30, 2017 (UTC)

I've now read the above discussion and it confirms my problem with the entire TARDIS Wikia. Only the television show is canonical and the audio dramas and books are only canon when they are made canon in the television episodes. This is the BBC's viewpoint. This should always be the case. It's why this entire wikia is a complete jumbled mess. There SHOULD be information about all the non-canon stuff, but in their own section of every single article (like an "In other media" section). This policy is ridiculous. Obviously my opinion will do absolutely nothing - but I thought I'd state it anyway. Mysterious Editor ☎ 19:49, December 30, 2017 (UTC)

No. The Wikia is exactly fine. There's no jumbled mess about it. No. It's not only the TV show that is canon. The BBC can't just make a story and just by that make something previously established, non-canon. Actually if that's how the BBC thinks, then this Wikia, in my opinion, handles it better than them. --DCLM ☎ 20:02, December 30, 2017 (UTC)

Let me just point out that statements like "This is the BBC's viewpoint" require a source. BBC consists of different people. It is quite likely that some of them think this way. However, to take this statement seriously, I would need to see a quote.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that BBC does not think so. The most trivial is the fact that they issue licences for all the other media. But, more importantly, there are multiple examples when BBC had direct creative input in these other media. It is a well-known fact that Big Finish Productions scripts are sent to BBC for approval. Occasionally, things have to be changed to fit better with the television stories, including those in production. One of the most obvious examples is the change to the script of the audio story The Beginning to account for the actions of Clara Oswald in the television story The Name of the Doctor. Given that the audio was recorded in July 2012, whereas the relevant episode only aired in May 2013, the only way for this to happen was by direct input from BBC. Similarly, the original cover of the audio was changed to show the same time capsule exterior as in the television episode. Russell T Davies, the creator of Torchwood for BBC, is collaborating with Big Finish on Aliens Among Us, the fifth (audio) series of Torchwood following from the events of Miracle Day.

Everyone is entitled to their own head canon. As long as it does not spill out into editing and is not forced on other people, there is no problem. Amorkuz ☎ 21:09, December 30, 2017 (UTC)

Just want to point out some information for Mysterious Editor and any other new users who visit this discussion. This wiki is older than the BBC Wales series. When it was started, the so-called "expanded universe" was all the new material that there was. This helped to inform the point of view of this wiki that all media are created equal. It's interesting to note that many people who are new to the wiki disagree with this stance and think only the TV series is "canon" or "valid". But prolonged editing here often causes users to change their minds and agree with policy. It certainly happened to me. Shambala108 ☎ 03:09, January 1, 2018 (UTC)

Of Canon, Doctor Who Universe and everything

The word "canon" has been thrown around but I neglected so far to state the wiki's stance on it, again to the benefit of novice editors. The wiki's Canon policy is "Doctor Who and its related programmes have no canon."

This might seem strange for readers coming from other communities. So perhaps this is a good opportunity to remind how and why the Tardis Data Core arrived at this position. (The inspiration for this policy was an excellent essay Canonicity in Doctor Who by an established Doctor Who writer Paul Cornell [1].)

Unlike, say, Star Wars, which always features an evil empire controlling everything on-screen and is usually governed by one legal entity in real life, Doctor Who universe (DWU) never had such a central authority. The peculiarities of British copyright law make it completely common that new characters created for an episode of a series remain intellectual property of the writers of the episode rather than the series' producers/showrunners. For instance, Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart first appeared in The Web of Fear, which was written by Mervyn Haisman and Henry Lincoln, who consequently owned the rights for him, inherited now by the Haisman Literary Estate from the late Mervyn Haisman. But this distribution of responsibility started from the very beginning. The first big success of Doctor Who was the serial that we now call The Daleks, aka The Mutants. Daleks were created by Terry Nation and are now jointly owned by the Terry Nation Estate and BBC in rather complicated ways. If you take a DVD with a series that features Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans etc. you will see how many copyrights are involved. In other words, BBC never was the evil empire in control of everything. And if you doubt that those other rightsholders were afforded creative input, look no further than the "Dalek riots" of 2004 [2].

This required the Doctor Who people to learn to work together. I think, it was fateful that the survival of the show was ensured by the ability to pass the torch from William Hartnell to Patrick Troughton. It set the tone of non-exclusivity. More than one lead, more than one show runner. And more or less from the second appearance of Daleks, more than one version of events. Doctor Who Universe is riddled with discontinuities and each fan copes with it as best they can. The wiki never tries to reconcile different versions. The way to record them on a wiki page is to use the "According to one account... According to another account..." device.

This means that in the world of Doctor Who canon is unreasonable, impractical and unhelpful. It might have made sense if restricting to BBC-produced TV dramas would have resulted in a clean discontinuity-free universe. But it's simply not the case.

Secondly, where would the boundary be? Is BBC Wales as good as BBC One? Probably. Who would want to exclude the NuWho? Then the first three series of Torchwood are also in. What about the fourth, produced largely by the American network Starz and premiered there? Still in? What about the already mentioned fifth series in the audio format produced by Big Finish under BBC licence with a lot of creative input from RTD?

And speaking of RTD, why would his fully fleshed novel Damaged Goods, published under BBC licence, carry less weight than a mere circumspect remark by Steven Moffat? Just because Moffat spoke of a TV series whereas RTD wrote a lot of prose? That would be simply illogical.

There is another reason why we never accept any postfactum additions from the creators. They are not set in stone. A person can change their views. I know I do. If three months from now Moffat says something completely opposite in an interview, which Moffat should we listen to? How do we decide whose position to take when two people disagree? If you think this is always easy to determine by some kind of ranking among all the creators of Doctor Who, consider this amusing debate between RTD and Moffat on the topic of whether the marriage of the Tenth Doctor and the Virgin Queen was consummated [3]. I wouldn't want to be an arbiter in such debates. Thus, we only consider things that are unchangeable: the stories themselves.

And I would even go as far as to say that doing otherwise would be disrespectful to the writers. Moffat is not an amateur, not by a long shot. If he didn't say anything about the grandfather in the episode, then he did not intend to. It's a truism that characters, once released into the world, get a life of their own. If Archibald was sent into the world without claiming to be the grandfather, then that was deliberate. We might never know why Moffat wanted it this way. But it did leave a door wide open for keeping the continuity with the Lethbridge-Stewart prose series. Let us not second-guess him on this.

Happy inclusive New Year, everyone! Amorkuz ☎ 16:01, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

Damn straight. Happy New Year! – N8 ☎ 02:58, January 1, 2018 (UTC)