Talk:The Monk (Doctor Who)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oldest thread[edit]

Perhaps I should explain why the Monk's appearance in the thirtieth anniversary special is particularly noteworthy, but it's a spoiler and in any case I don't suppose anybody here cares much. So I probably won't. --Paul A 03:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Years too late, but WHAT? You mean Dimensions in Time? The never-made Dark Dimension? The Pertwee BBC Radio serial? The Airzone Solution? 197.83.246.23 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains spoilers, so please do go right ahead and mention it. I wasn't aware the Monk made any appearances after his originals, so I for one am quite curious about it. Just make sure to put this line:

{{msg:spoiler}}

before the paragraph where you do, to give readers the option of not reading it. Bryan 04:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Moving page[edit]

I moved the page since the Monk's the only one of the titled Time Lords without a "The" prefixing his title as the article name. It's also easier to just add the "the" instead of removing it from everyone else. --khaosworks 08:02, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The key issue.[edit]

It's a simple fact. One which not even the over-eager Pugwall can deny.

Nobody in 1965/66 wrote a character who was a Time Lord called "The Monk". Peter Butterworth never played a Time Lord called "The Monk". And when writer and actor were both dead, there had never been a character in Doctor Who was a Time Lord called "the Monk".

Now, it is also true that in recent years, a certain kind of received wisdom has insisted that there was a character in Doctor Who who was a Time Lord called "the Monk". And we can point to unofficial guides to the television series printed in the 1990's or later. And, oh, look...in the 2010's Big Finish Audios started featuring a Time Lord character actually called "the Monk" in some stories that 99% of people who watch the tv show will never hear, and that the tv series can happily contradict. But, and this is important, Nicholas Briggs really believes that this Graeme Garden/Rufus Hound character is somehow the natural continuation of a character seen in television in the mid-1960's. And, because of that, EVERYTHING must now conform to this belief. And, Alex21 thinks that this article must claim that Briggsy's take was ALWAYS the "truth". Hey, there are 21st century articles to back that up!

But that would be equivalent in an article on the First Doctor saying that Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert created the character in the 60's to actually be the "Timeless Child", because that's what Chris Chibnall says about the character NOW. Yes, mention that in the article, but it must not define the article. And this "article" is mostly an in-narrative recap of Big Finish Audios as well.

The character was NOT created to be a Time Lord called "the Monk". Yes, state that that is ONE subsequent reinterpretation, but it ain't the first and last word. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what part of "the Monk" is shorthand for "the monk character that appears in The Time Meddler" do you not understand? No one is saying that that's his name in the programme. Even some of the adaptations make fun of it. DonQuixote (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know it's MUCH more than that, sparky. Or, if you don't, maybe you should just leave this issue alone. The lead is wrong. Like I ALREADY SAID. Plus the Big Finish in-narrative is longer than the rest of the article combined. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. You're just upset that he's not called the Master in the programme either. Stop trying to create an issue out of a non-issue. It's disruptive. Any adult with reading compression knows that the Monk or the Narrator or the Driver or the Prisoner, etc. aren't names. DonQuixote (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That shows how wrong you are. Again, there was never a character called "the Monk" in the television show. Never. Yes, there is a character called "the Monk" in Big Finish, but so what? Let's examine the introduction of this article..
"The Monk is a fictional character in the British science fiction television series Doctor Who.[2] Played by the British actor Peter Butterworth, the character appeared in two stories, The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Master Plan,[2] as an adversary of the First Doctor. They were written and co-written respectively by Dennis Spooner.
Other than the Doctor and Susan, the Monk was the first member of the Doctor's species to appear in the programme.[2][3]"
That is, to put it plainly, a complete load of crap. It's simply not true. Peter Butterworth appeared in those two Doctor Who serials in the 1960's, which were written/co-written by Dennis Spooner. But, other than that, it's a BLATANT LIE. And the matter-of-fact way it is stated because one latter-day source from an unreliable hack wrote something, is pathetic. Can YOU find anything from 65/66 stating what the article says? I bet you can't. That needs to be completely rewritten. You want to add the crap from Lofficier or any other book written DECADES after the event, go ahead. But it does NOT belong in the introduction. And then there's the fact that the character's actual appearances in those two serials is skimmed over in a couple of sentences, whereas the Big Finish just goes on and on. It's COMPLETELY POV towards the Big Finish interpretation, and actual contemporaneous material is pretty much absent. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources for the Monk being the first of the Doctor's race shown onscreen[edit]

  1. Haining, Peter (1988). Doctor Who: 25 Glorious Years. London: W.H. Allen. p. 139. ISBN 1852270217.
  2. Rigelsford, Adrian (1994). The Doctors: 30 years of Time Travel. London: Boxtree Litd. p. 45. ISBN 0752209590.
  3. Muir, John Kenneth (1999). A Critical History of Doctor Who on Television. London: McFarland and Company Inc. p. 139.
  4. Mulkern, Patrick (20 January 2009). "The Time Meddler". Radio Times. Immediate Media Company Ltd. Retrieved 28 July 2020.
  5. Wyman, Mark (2 April 2008). "The Fact of Fiction: The Time Meddler". Doctor Who Magazine. Panini Publishing Ltd.
  6. Blumberg, Arnold T (11 May 2012). "Doctor Who: The Time Meddler Review". IGN. Ziff Davis, LLC. Retrieved 28 July 2020.
  7. Bahn, Christopher (4 March 2012). "Doctor Who (Classic): "The Time Meddler Review"". AV Club. G/O Inc. Retrieved 28 July 2020.
  8. Salter, Danny (4 February 2008). "Doctor Who: The Time Meddler Review". Sci-Fi Online. www.sci-fi-online.com. Retrieved 28 July 2020.

And that's a couple of hours work with resources at hand. DonQuixote (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you wasted a couple of hours. None of those are anywhere near contemporaneous with the actual serials. And most of those are unreliable sources anyway. And again, it can't go in the introductory paragraph. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. There's at least 10, that makes it common, and they span four decades. Sorry that I can't head to the library at short nortice to peruse the archives. Stop being disruptive. DonQuixote (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also...it's ironic that you dismiss these as not being contemporary but wave around the FASA game, which isn't contemporary either (and it's not a valid secondary source to boot). DonQuixote (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. You're pushing one POV. Usinf contemporaneous sources, Peter Butterworth played a character who disguised himself as a monk, and can be referred to as "the monk", but NOT "the Monk". Everything else comes later. And yes FASA etc. is not contemporaneous either, but it's much closer to the time. I also see you are using Rigelsford as a "reliable source", which really says it all.
But there is NOTHING from the time about "their home planet", or "apart from the Doctor and Susan". That is ALL LATER interpretation and reception, DECADES after the event, and needs ro be treated as such. It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the character Peter Butterworth played and can NOT be put in the lead, as though that was always the intention, and the reality, in 1965/1966. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, read WP:DUE (Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.). Wikipedia reflects the sources. DonQuixote (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read your own post? "represent all significant viewpoints". And it does just that, sparky. But what you want is for your one preferred viewpoint to be in the introductory paragraph. Just as "FASA says.." or "Divided Loyalties says..", so "Howe and Walker say..." is ONE viewpoint. It should absolutely be included in the article, just NOT in the introduction. Get it? Got it? Good! 197.83.246.23 (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Reading comprehension. Learn it. Seriously, secondary sources have more prominence than adaptations (games and novels). DonQuixote (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict). And it's JUST ONE INTERPRETATION FROM ONE OBSCURE SOURCE. Include it, yes, but it's not the be-all and end-all. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's 10 sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of which are WP:RS. And you listed 8 there. But, even if it was ten reliable sources, it wouldn't matter diddlysquat. Because, as you said, we need to keep this article neutral, and not give precedence to any one of the contradictory accounts of the character beyond the television appearances by Peter Butterworth. Hey, do you have a Reliable Source which was even remotely in the same chronological era as the actual television appearances that says that? Didn't think so. What's more, it's not a universal statement. And, as such, it can't define the entire character, and ti can't define the entire article. It's an "according to some sources..." statement, not an all-encompassing one. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were two cited in the article itself for a total of ten. And you really need to understand the difference between primary sources and secondary sources and the difference between the original source material and its adaptations. The adaptations should be treated equally, yes, but the secondary sources should be treated with due weight. You really need to actually read WP:NPOV and WP:DUE--especially the part I quoted, because that's how tertiary sources, like wikipedia, work. The fact that you're not willing to understand or follow the guidelines of a tertiary source is what's causing the friction. DonQuixote (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And within context of "first of the Doctor's species", the above sources and The Programme Guide are reliable--that is, you can't just say that they're unreliable because you (an editor, who--like every other editor on here--has no reputation, and thus weight, to speak of) don't agree with them. DonQuixote (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Do those articles cover the article in its entirety? NO. And the fact that you include someone like Rigelsford as a reliable source speaks volumes. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, going by the reliable sources of the time the "First of the Doctor's species other than Susan" characters to appear in Doctor Who were Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright. Actually that policeman outside the junkyard. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't cover this article in its entirety--that's not what they're cited for. They're cited for exactly one sentence. And, seriously, due weight. Acadaemic concensus can change. If you want to add that the Doctor and Susan were considered humans in the original run, then add that with the appropriate sources. But since at least 1969, the consensus among reliable sources is that they're not human.
And, dude, I only own one book by Rigelsford, so I didn't pay any attention to him. This is actually when you're supposed to use the "reliable source" tag--when the author is surrounded in controversy, not when the sources disagree with your personal opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::: This does not mention The Time Meddler or the monk specifically, but read this. it's actually from the 60's [1]. Yes, you and your little clique can try and retcon to your heart's content, but it doesn't change the facts of the time.197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the "clique" that retconned the programme are Dennis Spooner, Robert Holmes, Barry Letts, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::: Yes, since 1969. Doctor Who(yes that was his actual name) and his granddaughter Susan were human beings. As they themselves repeatedly stated. And then Doctor Who met another person "From the same place" who only knew about Earth, And this person was disguised as a monk.

Then LATER the Doctor became a Time Lord. He also met another Time Lord who he instantly recognised. This Time lord was working as the "War Chief" for some aliens. Then later, the Master appeared, and the War Games were used as his backstory. And it was stated in multiple sources that the Doctor and the Master were the ONLY TWO renegade Time Lords, and the only two Time Lords to ever steal TARDISes. So, like it or not skippy, the Master and the War Chief are one and the same.
But, and here's where the problems come in..if the Master and the Doctor were the ONLY TWO renegade Time Lords, and the Master was the ONLY renegade Time Lord the Doctor came up against before Omega, and the Doctor met someone with a TARDIS "from the same place" who he recognised in The Time Meddler, then...
Saying "the Monk is the Master" made everything fit. But when Dennis Spooner wrote for Peter Butterworth he was writing for a human man, not a Time Lord. So, yes, there are reliable sources stating as such, but they're also interpretations.
And then the chuckleheads insisted that Peter Butterworth was a Time Lord who was not the Master, and that he is actually called "the Monk" as his Time Lord name.
But ANYTHING other than Peter Butterworth played a character in two television serials is NOT reliable, no matter how many books state it. Because it's someone trying to make sense out of two things that were never meant to be forced together. At the time, the Doctor and Susan had met several of their own people, as they were human beings. Retroactively making the Doctor a Time Lord doesn't automatically mean what you think it does. Whether you like it or not. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And stop calling people "dude". 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, no, the "clique" are the chuckleheads trying to force THEIR fanboy interpretations on people. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and actually read Adrian Rigelsford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And it was stated in multiple sources that the Doctor and the Master were the ONLY TWO renegade Time Lords, and the only two Time Lords to ever steal TARDISes.
Those "reliable sources" that you have provided are novelisations--which are primary sources and can't be used as secondary sources for other primary sources (as I have explained multiple times). Using them is no more valid than using the novels to state that his name is Mortimus. The point being, you can't do either one.
Saying "the Monk is the Master" made everything fit.
Yes, but that's still a fan theory--it's not mentioned in any episode of the programme nor in most secondary sources. When that happens, it's called original research.
Retroactively making the Doctor a Time Lord doesn't automatically mean what you think it does. Whether you like it or not.
That's your personal POV. Again, consensus amongst secondary sources (i.e. due weight) is against you.
But ANYTHING other than Peter Butterworth played a character in two television serials is NOT reliable, no matter how many books state it.
Wikipedia works by citing and summarising reliable sources--i.e. books. Look, as I've said, if you don't want to follow the rules of wikipedia, then you can go create your own wiki or fansite. Wikipedia does it this way--no matter if it's wrong or not (in your eyes).
And stop calling people "dude".
Ok, sparky. DonQuixote (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I just posted a link to a reliable source saying the Doctor is from Earth. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, no, the "clique" are the chuckleheads trying to force THEIR fanboy interpretations on people
Isn't that describing yourself. Again, the name of the game at wikipedia is citing and summarising reliable sources (preferably secondary sources--but primary sources can be used to describe their contents).
and actually read Adrian Rigelsford
Yeah, I did. That's why I said This is actually when you're supposed to use the "reliable source" tag--when the author is surrounded in controversy, not when the sources disagree with your personal opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I just posted a link to a reliable source saying the Doctor is from Earth.
Yeah, and as I have said, If you want to add that the Doctor and Susan were considered humans in the original run, then add that with the appropriate sources. And, if I remember correctly, I think it's actually already mentioned in the relative articles. DonQuixote (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, there are contradictory sources. YOU are the one trying to place ONE of them in the introduction. And that is pushing a POV. Period. I also take it you never actually read about Rigelsford and his history of publishing false information. Even Wikipedia says as much. And that's the guy you want to use as the 'expert'? That says it all.
But, basically, if you're summarising and citing sources, then DON'T force YOUR POV as the "standard", and place everything else down the page as "reception" or vague links. You are the one pushing a 'fan theory'. No one else. All I have tried to do is add some NPOV to what was, and still is, a grotesquely distorted and POV article.197.83.246.23 (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, ten nine sources. Please read WP:DUE. DonQuixote (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this I won't be back. And you can post nay nonsense you like on any article., and the fact that there are nine sources backing up the statement, I'm going to restore this. DonQuixote (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down.[edit]

Hello. I've spotted the comments made at Admin Noticeboard and thought I'd pop by.

First things first, I'm not an admin. But I've been here for yonks and know when a talk page is getting out of hand when I see one. So in the spirit of co-operation and neutrality, I thought I'd nip by.

The main take I'm seeing from this talk page is passion. Passion is good, and can be harnessed well in the right circumstances. What we need to do is try to take a step back, breathe, and then see what direction the passion needs to take for the good of Wikipedia. Remember that, ultimately, this is Wikipedia. Not Wikia, not a Geocities fan site, not a notepad in your bedroom. This article needs to be comprehensive, accurate, neutral, and true to any viable, credible, official sources. If you're spending too long going back-and-forth about a fictitious character on Wikipedia, I do suggest that you close the laptop and try focusing on other things for a few days. It truly is not so important.

You all need to calm down. The character of the Monk isn't real. "Doctor Who" isn't real. Each producer, writer, author and actor associated with "Doctor Who" brought their own spin on each particular era. The Monk was one tiny fragment in the show's entire and on-going run, so of course, over 40+ years, different sources will do different, contradictory, and occasionally stupid things with the character. Wikipedia can't have 50-odd articles for each different version, so one article will have to do. It's fine for one article about a fictitious character to be filled with contradiction. It's sci-fi, remember, rules do tend to be written in haste and ret-conned at leisure. Calm down, if you think it's vitally important to be absolutely exact about each and every facet of The Monk's backstory. Guess what, each successive writer probably gave less of a damn about canon than you are.

So now that you're calm, think about the content. If you want to focus on Big Finish, then make a section about their versions of the character. Make that your focus. If you want to focus on sources other than Big Finish, then make a section and focus on that. Each section will explain to the readers of the future why elements don't quite add up, and why some details contradict others. Remember, this is The Monk from "Doctor Who" - it is not the Bible, it is not Israel-Palestine, it is not Trump, you don't have to get emotionally involved over the "right" or "wrong" about the content of this article. Find sources, use them. Find details, explain them. Find characterisations which don't quite add up to previous or subsequent ones, and outline them.

And guess what? Editors will follow you, and undo and redo and change what you've done. That's Wikipedia for you. Don't stress and sweat over this one article to such a degree as you seem to. Be kind to each other. Be reasonable. Be focused. Realise that The Monk from "Doctor Who" is not *that* important, and is not *so* big a deal if the article is full of different sources which are at odds with each other. You will have your edits, and other editors will have theirs, and a compromise must be made. Because the alternative? You're blokes spending all day on Wikipedia arguing over something which does not exist, and nobody wants to have that lightbulb moment on a lazy Sunday afternoon. Be good x doktorb wordsdeeds 10:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Monk_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1200729714"