Talk:The Master (Doctor Who)

Added link to book proving Peter Butterworth was the original Master

As topic says. Peter Butterworth was the first actor to play the Time Lord best known as 'The Master'. Nicholas Griggs (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the BBC itself says it did not even think up this character until late 1970 and first introduction was 2 January 1971. Therefore I have added substantiating text from English Wikipedia article and source that ws in the history. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 15:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But if Reliable Sources say something, and it can be verified, then there's no reason to exclude it? Wikipedia must maintain a Neutral point of View, and Reliable Sources are just that, reliable.

And it continues. An editor keeps removing Reliably Sourced information, blanking both the information, plus the source/citation.

Page from an official Doctor Who book(ISBN: 978-0931787904)

Here: [1].

Now please stop vandalising this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.232 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That page indicates it is from the Doctor Who role playing game. The game is not a reliable source. I don't think the book you mention is authoritative, either: what makes it an "official" Doctor Who book? Other sources mention the theory of the Monk being the Master, but say that it has been disproven. Please stop adding this information unless you find a better source. In addition, I (and at least one other editor) undid your changes because we believed them to be incorrect. That is not "blanking" or vandalism, so please stop calling it that. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That is just one source. I believe the article mentions another. And there is no one called 'the Monk'. As this source(and others) state(s) the Master once disguised himself as a monk. Once. There is no Time Lord character in Doctor Who called 'The Monk' or 'The Meddling Monk' or anything like that. And there is nothing at all that is even particular monk-like, apart from his being disguised as a monk. If the character you keep calling 'The Monk' is actually called 'the Monk', then the Doctor is actually called 'The Cleaning Lady'(as per The Green Death).

Disruptive blanking

Someone keeps blanking material, despite at least two Reliable Sources confirming it. They also speak of some 'video game'. What 'video game'? A variety of books, all Reliable Sources, and all officially licensed and authorised by the BBC state this. It's Verified by Reliable Sources. And anyone who blanks Reliably Sourced information because they don't like it(and they clearly don't even know what they are talking about) is therefore being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.117 (talk • contribs)

More disruptive editing

Now someone else is ALSO removing Reliably Sourced information. Again, if there are two Reliable Sources listed, then why would someone remove that information, as well as removing the Reliable Sources? Because they are trying to force their opinion, rather than trying to help the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.117 (talk • contribs)

Again, as has been pointed out on the English Wikipedia before, the book itself cannot reliably support the following:

• The Doctor Who RPG is part of canon
• The Meddling Monk, "an earlier version of the Master", is the same character as The Master

I would further argue that the cited book is actually just comparing similarities between the two characters for the purpose of plot/character analysis, and further makes the distinction between The Meddling Monk and the Master; "both characters" is consistently used in the paragraph regarding Peter Butterworth's appearance as The Meddling Monk. Also, this material is classified in the book as "commentary".

By the way, you cited both the game and the book to support the claim that Peter Butterworth's appearance as the Master is the first; this is improper editorial synthesis of material. The book does not say anything about the game, and even if I accept that The Meddling Monk is the Master (which I do not), the book does not establish that the story in the RPG is canon. Chenzw  Talk  11:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your key points here are that:

a)You "would argue" that the book is just comparing similarities, even though it says straight out that they are the same character.

b)YOU do not like that "the Meddling Monk"(clearly identified as a DISGUISE) is the Master, so you removed it.

And, yes the book never mentions the game. The book only talks about the television show, and says that the Monk is the Master. So those are two entirely separate Reliable Sources that both unambiguously state that peter Butterworth's "Monk" character in The Time Meddler is the Master.

Your ONLY "position" is that, for entirely personal reasons, YOU don't want to believe what(at least) two Verifiable Reliable Sources both state, NOT suggest, state, outright. Namely that Peter Butterworth's 'Monk' character in The Time Meddler IS the Master. So really what I accept or do not accept as your own POV/Opinion is irrelevant. We have Reliable Sources, and as you yourself so helpfully pointed out, neither relies on the other. Therefore, unless you have something other than the fact that you personally don't want to accept Reliable Sources, then that should be that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.117 (talk • contribs)

How does that justify Muir's "commentary" as valid, then? Also, I want to point out that the author of your cited book mentioned in his commentary that the Monk character "is clearly an earlier version of the Master". How does that translate into the Monk being the same character as the Master? Also, you haven't answered my question as to how the story in the RPG is canon. The primary focus of the article is on the character in the TV show, and to use your information is giving undue weight to the existence of a "Master" in spinoff media.

Neither source relies on the other, and herein lies a problem. If you can't give a source that clearly states that the RPG's storyline is canon, then the FASA game cannot be considered reliable, for it has no authority over the Doctor Who universe. Chenzw  Talk  14:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, as has been pointed out earlier by another editor on this page, "BBC itself says it did not even think up this character until late 1970". How can the "Monk" character be the same character as the Master if the idea behind the Master wasn't even conceived of at that time? Chenzw  Talk  14:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

:How does that justify Muir's "commentary" as valid, then? Eh? It's a factual book about the television show Doctor Who.

Also, I want to point out that the author of your cited book mentioned in his commentary that the Monk character "is clearly an earlier version of the Master". How does that translate into the Monk being the same character as the Master? The same way that we can say that Melody Pond is an earlier version of River Song.

Also, you haven't answered my question as to how the story in the RPG is canon. What 'story'? It's a factual description of their in-universe television encounters, including their in-universe televisions story 'The Time Meddler'. it's not a story, it's a factual section that gives a history of their encounters in the televisions series. And it's not a video game either... The primary focus of the article is on the character in the TV show, and to use your information is giving undue weight to the existence of a "Master" in spinoff media. Neither is "spin-off media", Spin-off media is stuff like the Virgin new Adventures. The one book listed is a factual episode guide of the television series, going story-by-story. The other may contain elements of spin-off media elsewhere in the book, but not in the section that has been used for RS. That is a factual summary of their television encounters.

Neither source relies on the other, and herein lies a problem.

In what way? If you can't give a source that clearly states that the RPG's storyline is canon, then the FASA game cannot be considered reliable, for it has no authority over the Doctor Who universe. But again, it is NOT a storyline. The section on the Master is a factual summary of the television encounters between the Doctor and the Master, including their encounter in The Time Meddler. It is not, and never was, a story. Do you consider Michael Okuda's Star Trek Encyclopedia to be a 'storyline'? too?

By the way, as has been pointed out earlier by another editor on this page, "BBC itself says it did not even think up this character until late 1970".

Yeah, some people say that now. But that clearly wasn't the case then. How can the "Monk" character be the same character as the Master if the idea behind the Master wasn't even conceived of at that time? So people say today. But this is like 'Socrates was Black'. An idea that people long after the event thought up, and try to push as factual now.

— This unsigned comment was added by 197.88.60.117 (talk • changes).