Talk:The Monk (Doctor Who)

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)

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)

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)

Moving page

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 Master

Wasn't the theory about the Monk being the Master first made popular in a manual for a DW RPG in the 80s? Does anyone know anything about this? — P Ingerson (talk) 21:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like the nonsense that the FASA RPG was spouting (like the origins of the Sontarans), but I don't have any reference materials on hand. Let me do a little Googling and see what I can come up with. --khaosworks 21:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not even close. It was stated by Dicks and co. years before.

Facts from tv show: The Doctor and the "Monk" are both renegade Time Lords who stole TARDISes.

The "Monk" was NOT "stranded" anywhere. He could travel his stolen TARDIS, he just couldn't control where/when he was going.

The "Monk" was never an actual monk. It was a disguise.

The "Monk" instantly recognises the Doctor.

Facts from other media:

The novelisation of Time Meddler explitly states that the Doctor and the "Monk" knew each other before this story.

The novelisation of The War Games explicitly states that the Doctor and the "War Chief" knew each other before that story, and that they are the only two renegade Time Lords.

The novelisation of Terror of the Autons states that the Doctor and the Master knew each other before that story, that "Master" is a new name for that Time Lord, that the Master had both 'meddled' before, as well as having organised war games...and that the Doctor and the Master are the only two renegade Time Lords. Also, the Doctor is surprised that the Master has a properly functioning TARDIS.

Thenovelisation of The Doomsday Weapon explicitly states that only two TARDISes have ever been stolen, one by the Doctor, and one by the Master, that the Doctor's TARDIS is inferior, that the Master had organised the events of The War Games, and that the Doctor and the Master are the only two renegade Time Lords.

The novelisation of The Sea Devils explicitly states that the Doctor and the Master are the only two renegade Time Lords.

The novelisation of The Three Doctors explicitly states that, prior to facing Omega, the Doctor had only ever faced one other Time Lord...the Master.

Ever wonder why there was never a "Monk sequel" or "War Chief sequel" or "Master origin story"?

And remember, the Delgado UNIT years Master, then the burned Pratt/Beevers Master, then the Master stealing the bodies of Tremas (Ainley) and Bruce (Roberts) were all the same incarnation. And, of course, people like Jacobi and Simm give thier OWN interpretations of the character, playing different incarnations.

The "nonsense" is what Virgin Books and Big Finish Audios served up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research. Please publish it in a book or magazine article so that we can cite it. DonQuixote (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not "original research". It's a fact, jack. Btw, do you live on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH. DonQuixote (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, here's the bottom line, unless a reliable source says something explicitly, the only thing wikipedia can do is leave it open to interpretation. It's not wikipedia's job to fill in the blanks and connect the dots. It's not wikipedia's job to state which licensed media is better and which is nonsense. You whining about your favourite version vs your least favourite version won't get any results. The name of the game is citing reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And now you're making personal attacks. "Whining"? No, stating a simple fact. And as for WP:RS, you mean like the FASA Module which explicitly states that the "meddling monk" was an alias the Master once used? So, by dismissing that, and creating an entire article called "The Monk (Doctor Who), YOU are the one pushing your agenda of YOUR favourite version. How is that NPOV? It's not. You are the one stating "which licensed media is better, and which is nonsense".

Because, there is are at least two RS from the time stating that FACT. Written by the people closest to the source, not some fanboy website several decades after the event. The FASA Game, and the "background" section for board game Doctor Who: The Game of Time % Space. Add to that, the OBVIOUS interpretation, which is clearly NOT OR drawn from the Target novels, and only someone deliberately pushing their WP:POV would make comments such as yours.

This article takes it as plain fact that there is a character in Doctor Who who actually uses the name "The Monk" in the same way as the Doctor is "The Doctor". It then contains a rambling, largely unsourced mess, which reads like the worst kind of fan fiction. And, buried in there somewhere, under "Other appearances", it mentions 'ONEsource to the contrary. But someone just glancing at the article would never see that, and would likely give up reading it before that, due to the fact that it's very poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The FASA game is not a secondary source, it's a primary source and can only be used to describe its contents. Primary sources include novels, games, short stories, films, television dramas, etc. Secondary sources are nonfiction works which include books about films, magazine articles about people, documentaries about events, etc. The FASA game, the board game, the Virgin Books, and the Big Finish Audios are all primary sources and treated as such in the respective articles with equal weight. Sorry that we don't favour one or the other.

I apologise for biting your head. Your inabilility or unwillingness to understand concepts such as primary source, secondary source, tertiary source, writing about fiction, citing and summarising reliable sources, due weight, etc. is getting rather tiresome.

Please read about primary, secondary & tertiary sources, writing about fiction, citing and summarising reliable sources, and due weight. Unless you start citing reliable secondary sources (ie, works of nonfiction about the television programme, the novelisations, the comics, etc.), your claims will be read as just your interpretations of the primary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Phrased like that, you clearly don't understand. They are not treated with "equal weight". That's actually the whole point.

And the background information in the FASA Game and the Board Game are about it, not within it. Playing the physical game is being "within" it. Your inabilility inability to comprehend that is the problem.

True, the Target novels are primary sources, but right now they very clearly are treated as less compared to the Virgin Books or Big Finish Audios. Even you would have to agree with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

They are all listed and summarised in Other media...that's equal weight. No one item in Other media is placed over another in preference. From the article:

In the Doctor Who role-playing game published by FASA in 1985, the Monk features as an earlier incarnation of the Master,[4] who is depicted as being his sixth incarnation which he personally chose after a failed rebellion on Gallifrey forced him to flee.[5] After the events of The Time Meddler, the game suggests that the Monk was able to replace the missing dimensional components, but a minor miscalculation sent him, and his TARDIS to a planet in the 'crack' between realities, a planet which he later named 'Merast' and used as a base of operations. It also cost him a full regeneration, however he was able to keep his current appearance.[6] After the Monk's second encounter with the First Doctor on the planet Tigus, he regenerated into a 'strikingly handsome, middle-aged man'.[5]

The Monk also appears in the New Adventures novel No Future by Paul Cornell, in which he is given the name "Mortimus". The novel was the last of a story arc published to coincide with the series' 30th anniversary in 1993, in which the Seventh Doctor encounters various alternate realities that have been created due to the Monk's meddling with time, including a reality where the Third Doctor was killed in his confrontation with the Silurians (Blood Heat), attempting to distract the Doctor while he helps the Vardans to invade Earth, thus getting their mutual revenge on the Doctor for their losses during their past confrontations with him. Although the Monk seemingly traps the Doctor on the same ice planet he was himself exiled to, thanks to the betrayal of the Doctor's companion Ace, it is revealed at the conclusion of the novel that Ace was simply pretending to side with the Monk to defeat him, the novel ending with the Monk being apparently captured by a Chronovore that he had imprisoned to help him alter time. The Monk, once again as "Mortimus", makes an appearance in the Past Doctor Adventures novel Divided Loyalties; as part of a flashback to the First Doctor's days at the Academy, Mortimus is seen as part of a group of students, taught by Borusa among others, known as the Deca, a group of activists campaigning for more intervention, alongside the Doctor, Ushas (the Rani), Koschei (the Master), Magnus (the War Chief), Drax, a spy named Vansell, Millennia, Rallon and Jelpax. He aids the Deca in learning about the Celestial Toymaker, several members of which then undertake a disastrous trip to his realm.[7] The Monk later makes a cameo appearance, as "Mortimus", in The Quantum Archangel, working alongside the Rani, Drax and The Master in an artificially created parallel universe.[8]

Etc. Can't get more equal than listing and summarising them. Sorry that we're not upvoting your favourites more than they deserve.

And yes, they're about the games. Any liner notes, instructions, etc. about the games are only about the games. Games are not secondary sources in any way. They are not works of nonfiction. That's the point.

As to your final point, there's an entire list of Doctor Who novelisations, and they're listed and mentioned, where appropriate, without synthesis or original research. Sorry that we don't join two or more works together or with other primary sources, but that requires the citation of a nonfiction work (secondary source) such as a book, a magazine article, a documentary, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just Wow. How is that "equal weight"? You can NOT honestly believe that to be the case, can you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

They're listed and they're summarised. That's it actually. DonQuixote (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Page move?

The discussion really should be here instead of at Page moves. That being said, the reason for the definitive article in front of Meddling Monk is a combination of historical useage and inertia. It can be argued that this is his full title, not merely "Meddling Monk", but at the same time, there's the consistency issue, as we have entries of "Valeyard", not "The Valeyard" and "Rani (Doctor Who)", not "The Rani" and more especially "The Doctor (Doctor Who)", so it's starting to look like a bit of a hodge podge. There's also "The Inquisitor" and "The Other (Doctor Who)". I'm still considering what's the better way to go about this, but this will have a knock-on effect on the titles of those articles as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that definitive articles are not to be placed at the beginning of character article (or any article, for that matter), unless it's abundantly clear that it is part of their name. I.e. a sentence referring to them would be "Hello, The Cheat." If characters like Joker (comics) or Universities can't have "the" in the titles, I'm not all that sympathetic to Meddling Monk and the other articles losing "the" from their titles. They shouldn't recieve different treatment just because they all happen to be from Doctor Who. Apostrophe 15:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you believe in it strongly enough to fix all the redirects? The Doctor (Doctor Who) has about 500. Tim! (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I only see two. Not all that hard of a task. Apostrophe 20:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

goto the article and click on "what links here", you'll see all the articles which link to it as its current name. All of them would have to change. Also check Master (Doctor Who) which you've already moved, not nearly as many, but you can see what has happened. Tim! (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the page move until final disposition of this discussion - it's going to be a massive project to fix the redirects, so I think we should all be appraised of the consequences and be prepared to accept it before we proceed with any moves. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the problem. If people click on a link that's a redirect, it'd direct them to the article that the redirect page is a redirect to. If people click on Aeris, they'd still be sent to Aerith Gainsbourg. The only problem is double redirects, of which there would only be two for Doctor (Doctor Who). Or this a Wikipedia style thing? --Apostrophe 04:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see the problem with the redirects, I move pages like this every once in a while and rarely have to fix more than a handful. The only time large numbers of articles need relinking is when pages split into several articles for disambiguation-related reasons. Relinking articles to bypass redirects is a cosmetic thing that I only bother to do when I'm already editing a page for other reasons. Bryan 04:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately, after consideration, my position is that I don't mind either way - just that it be consistent. That is, if we move remove the "The", then it should be the same for all, i.e. The War Chief, the Master, etc. We'll just have to fix the redirects as we find them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

So, if there's no objection, I'll start moving some that I can, then. --Apostrophe 21:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Do try to get a head start on fixing some of the redirects as you can too, while you're at it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 13:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Saxon

There has been speculation that Mr. Harold Saxon in the upcoming finale to the latest series of Doctor Who is the Monk. The Monk; the first enemy time lord the Doctor met in the original series, wanted King Harold the Saxon to win the Battle of Hastings and rewrite history so that the Saxons were victorious. It could be this "Saxon" is the name sake of that attempt, and the first enemy time lord the Doctor meets in the new series as well. 207.202.227.125 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

good point, although, if he is the monk then surely he would be preaching instead ofrunning the country??? --click here 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's being confrimed that the Master will be in the series finale, so the chances of seeing two Time Lord enemies of the Doctor seems slim, but you never know. Michael Mad 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Character name

What evidence is there, really, that this character's name is "The Meddling Monk"? Surely, the monk was just a disguise for the purposes of the specific story, and that his continued use of the disguise, as seen in DMP, was because the Doctor had stranded him in an era where the disguise was still relevant. Should the reference to him as "The Time Meddler" by the DWM story, "4-Dimensional Vistas", not be given greater credence as an attempt to take the name of the character from the title of the serial in which he appeared, rather than the deceptive narrative? He wasn't a monk when he was stealing all that other loot we see in his TARDIS in "The Time Meddler". He took other disguises appropriate to the various eras to aid his plunder.

Somehow, I think the article needs to go a bit further in explaining why DWM made the choice they did. I think it wouldn't be too far to suggest that "The Time Meddler" be given consideration in the first sentence of the article as an alternative name for the character, and then to explain later in the article why there's ambiguity about the name. Calling the character, "The Meddlng Monk"—no matter how well-entrenched that now is in fan circles—is a bit like saying the name of the Master is "Mr. Magister", or any one of the dozens of other disguises the Master had. Somehow, over the years, "the meddling Monk" has turned into "The Meddling Monk", and it's not really accurate. CzechOut 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Marooned?

On my viewing of "Escape Switch", the Monk was not marooned on the desolate planet, it was merely somewhere he'd landed before realising that his directional circuit had been removed. The Monk then complains (and I paraphrase) that now he is doomed to wander the universe like the Doctor. But that he will get his own back, one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.68.223 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

100% correct. Yet, 'Mortimus' from No Future was marooned on an ice planet. In addition, 'Mortimus' in No Future never knew the Doctor from the Academy days. 'Mortimus' from 'No Future' was also apparently an actual monk, unlike Peter Butterworth's character from The Time Meddler, who merely disguised himself as a monk. Clearly 'Mortimus' from No Future has nothing at all to do with the Time Lord played by Peter Butterworth.

LOTS of citations required

This article contains a LOT of wild claims, fanboy speculation, and bizarre OR conclusions. What is lacks are real valid sources which back up ANY of the statements presented as fact. I have tagged many of these. These have previously been removed, but since nobody has made any effort to provide WP:RS, I have put them back in. The way the article reads now is most definitely not up to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:TAGBOMB. The top of the article has {{refimprove}} and {{Original research}}: these should be sufficient - you may raise specific points on this talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

But it isn't "specific points". Going line-by-line, MOST of the article is unsourced and OR. Even the article's name itself is OR! This discussion would inevitable focus on one or two points(assuming any sort of discussion even takes place). Until the,m each and every point must be marked, for someone to either improve, source, or remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Point-by-point

1)The Meddling Monk or simply The Monk.... Says who? The episode crdits list the character as "The Monk". "The Meddling Monk" is the name of an episode, not a character.

2)The character appeared in two stories... However, an interview with Terrance Dicks(which I'm trying to find the link to) establishes that the character of The War Chief was supposed to be implied to the the regenerated character from The Time Meddler. Further, Doctor Who Magazine Issue 75(April 1983) previews the then-forthcoming The Kings' Demons with references to The Time Meddler. Of course the villain in The King's Demons turned out to be The Master. Two years later the FASA Role Playing Game stated that "The Monk" and "The War Chief" were prior incarnations of The Master. And a 1988 edition of Mastermind had a contestant with the specialist subject of Doctor Who being asked "In which serial did The Mad Monk(not 'meddling') first use the name The 'Master' "?

3)[The Monk] claimed to have left the Doctor's then unnamed home planet some 50 years after the Doctor did... he did no such thing. The Doctor remarks to Vicki and Steven that they're from the same place but I would say that I am fifty years earlier(Doctor's words). The character who the article is about NEVER mentions ANY time or age or anything, besides his stating I'm getting too old for this at one point.

4)...when the Doctor first encountered him... The first encounter in the television show. It could be reworded that way. It is made abundantly clear both in the show and in other media that this is not their first encounter.

5)...hence the name by which he became known... which one? The credits refer to him as "The Monk", Doctor Who Magazine refers to him as "The Time Meddler", Mastermind refers to him as "The Mad Monk", Dicks refers to him as "The War Chief", The FASA Game states that he is "The Master", while he simply disguised himself as "a monk". Meanwhile, Wikipedia has an article called "The Meddling Monk".

6)The two never met on-screen again....I need to find the link to the Dicks interview, and then there's the FASA Game and the Mastermind episode(it was 1988 but I'll try and find the exact date. Of note it was BEFORE any unauthorized or unofficial guides which are used by some as a Reliable Source).

7)...the Monk last being seen... (see above, and note the "Meddling" part has been dropped by whoever wrote this article)

8)Unlike the Doctor's adversaries....such as The Master... see FASA, Mastermind etc.

9)The Monk was presented as a comic figure... Because he planned to wipe out the entire Viking fleet with a nuclear warhead?

10)...who was not half as clever as he thought he was...The Doctor reduced the "Monk's" TARDIS interior to the size of a small doll's house, yet he repaired the circuit(using only 11the Century technology) and tracked the Doctor down. Later, the Doctor disabled his chameleon circuit, yet he repaired that almost immediately, something the Doctor was NEVER able to do.

11)...never seemed to realise the seriousness of what he was doing...s with ALL these points there are NO WP:RS and it is all WP:OR. My comments are also largely WP:OR (for now), but it is worth pointing out this section is supposed to show the difference between "The Meddling Monk"(or whatever he's called at this point) and The Master. In terms of not realising the seriousness of doing something...watch The Master in Logopolis.

12)...disguising how dangerous a person like The Monk(I think "Meddling" has been abandoned by now) can really be...well pure WP:OR really

13)...propagated mainly... Says who? Pure [[WP:OR}] and WP:POV. LONG before the FASA game existed it was widely held as fact. Of course my saying that is no more a WP:RS than what is stated in the article, but it is certainly no LESS a WP:RS than what is stated in the article.

14)...this theory has not been as widespread in recent years...Says who? A quick search of Google dispels that idea. Also the fact that it's referred to as a theory would make it on sound footing.

15)...that The Doctor and The Monk had not met previously...The Monk immediately recognises The Doctor, The Doctor states And what are you trying to get up to this time? Best of all, the same people who stated that they'd "not met previously"(first published in The Discontinuity Guide would later point to Divided Loyalties as "proof" that "Mortimus The Time Meddling Mad Monk" and "Doktor Magnus Felix Kriegslieter The War Chief" aren't the same person.

If this can all be boiled down to simple problems...it is the COMPLETE LACK OF WP:RS. It is the fact that the article is a bunch of stitched-together myths that have been swirling amongst people who clearly haven't even watched the episodes properly. People reading something in a fanzine, or putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, and then writing a whole article using these "facts"! There are no RS, and it's all WP:OR, and a pretty poor job of OR as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to point 1, he actually was credited as "The Meddling Monk" in The Daleks' Master Plan. 2.30.74.242 (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the proper procedure for contesting citations?

Someone has added 2 citation, both of which are links to other Wikipedia articles. Namely the "claimed to have left Gallifrey 50 years after the Doctor" and the "last seen on a desolate icy planet". Since when it is considered WP:RS to link to another Wikipedia article, which also doesn't have the WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The serials proper (primary source) were cited (summarising the plot). The links to Wikipedia articles are helpful links included in the cite serial template. DonQuixote (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

But surely that is WP:OR? Those articles don't have the WP:RS either. Thus you are using one unsourced Wikipedia article as the source for another unsourced Wikipedia article. You would need the plot summary of a reliable published book, not another Wikipedia article that is similarly lacking anything to back up much of its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.62 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, it was the Doctor who hypothesised that the Monk left Gallifrey 50 years after the Doctor did. That's a plot summary. That just requires the primary source. All the other stuff which are OR still have their citation needed tags. DonQuixote (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No WP:RS for several claims

The "Other appearances" section is just people giving their own interpretation of stories, some of which were inaccurate, and nearly all of which were completely unsourced. Of course, the only one with any source was the FASA Game. Also, having 'Mortimus' appear somewhere is unrelated here. Unless it states it is the same character as this article, it's WP:OR. The whole Divided Loyalties thing, the claims of what unpublished chapters would have said and what was hinted at in other books, the POV nonsense, and all unsourced. As such, a lot(though far from all) of it has been removed. If anyone wants to reinstate any of that, it will need to be properly WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The additional information I included is NOT based on interpretation, and it should be included. It is part of the introduction as information for the gameplayers and the gamesmaster, it casts doubt on the legitimacy of any information in the book and has to be included if the source is to be considered valid for inclusion. If the edit war continues, any information from the FASA game should be deleted, as I supplied the information and have access to the source material. 82.26.182.43 (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Use template:cite book. DonQuixote (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The citation exists already, the only thing he forgot to delete 82.26.182.43 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

1)What does it say in the book? Exactly? Please quote it here. Just so we can be sure it's not OR.

2)DonQuixote is fixated with Divided Loyalties. Yet it never mentions anything about a character called 'The Monk' least of all one who has a biography that is anything listed in this article. And it's totally unsourced either way.

3)That's the big thing, sources. This whole article reads like some small child's bizarre interpretation of something they've heard third- or fourth- hand. The one thing it sorely lacks is any sort of RS. ANd most of the so-called RS here, are sources where what is claimed to be verified is not actually listed in the source that is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Er...what? I'm sorry, but that's just another one of your strawmen. I couldn't care less about Divided Loyalties...in fact, I have never read it. What I do care about is proper citation of reliable sources.

And yes, this article needs a major rewrite. Feel free to do so. And to make sure that this article is well written, please be sure to cite all your sources and make sure that they're considered reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Page 4/Introduction

CIA FILE EXTRACTS- A short module of the player's information is included in this supplement. Taking the form of a CIA briefing on the Master, the CIA file extracts book is neither complete nor totally accurate. It sometimes reflects the opinions, conjectures, and outright fabrications injected by its Time Lord authors, rather than the absolute truth needed by the gamemaster

Page 4/Introduction

Gamemasters are, of course, free to introduce alternative explanations and interpretations of the material offered here. For example, if a gamemaster disagrees with the concept of identifying the Master with the meddling Monk who faced the first Doctor, or if he feels there is a better explanation of the Master's escape from the volcanic fire on Sarn, such changes should be freely implmented 82.26.182.43 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have previously included the relevant Monk/Master information from the CIA File extracts in the 'Other appearances' section.82.26.182.43 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does the fact that the book is effectively saying that anything or everything written within, concerning the Monk/Master's history, is potentially bovine feces, mean that it isn't a reliable enough source for Wikipedia anyway? 82.26.182.43 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My honest critique is that it can be mentioned here, but more detailed description of the game contents can be described in the game's own article. DonQuixote (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, that's in-universe. And it's merely saying that the players are free to change elements of the Role Playing Game as they see fit. However, the Module itself identifies the Master with 'The Monk'. It's like if you get together with friends to play football. There are official rules of the game. But you and your friends having fun on a Saturday afternoon may choose to mix it up a bit by changing a few rules. But that doesn't change what the actual rules are. And typical DonQuixote for trying to distort what it actually says, and making several illogical leaps from there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The second quote I gave you, yes, however the first quote casts doubts on the validity of the CIA file extract and it is the very same CIA file extract that you find the information on the Monk being the Master. If it is stated to be "neither complete nor totally accurate" and "reflecting the outright fabrications of its Time Lord authors", you effectively have a source which questions its own legitimacy, and i'm sure that is an important piece of information if the 'not-we' are ever to come across the Monk article for further info on the character and draw their own conclusions.82.26.182.43 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article is already skewed as it is. Some may say that this article existing in its own right is already OR/POV. But the point is, how would you suggets the information be added? Could you show a rough text here on the discussion page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with both of you. The article itself really needs to be sorted out. At the moment i'd only add something in the same vein as what I wrote before, but if that comes across as OR/POV to you or anyone else reading it, even with a citation, there's not really much point at this stage.82.26.182.43 (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Quantum Archangel issue

Why are the events of the novel 'Quantum Archangel' being contested, or having doubt cast upon them?

If you google 'Quantum Archangel Monk' you will find multiple references to them.

86.25.30.125 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A quick skim of the book results in 'Mortimus, otherwise known as the Monk' (pg. 233). DonQuixote (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Hope this helps others 86.25.30.125 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have further removed any information I have written that hasn't had a reliable third party source attached to it. Hope this sorts out any issues 86.25.30.125 (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

86 is taking things to unfortunate lengths. At this point the article may be beyond salvation anyway, as it's just a bunch of fanon and OR slung together to create somebody's POV fan fiction idea rather than anything using proper RS. I wash my hands of this mess of an "Article". Feel free to add whatever fan fiction you like, I'm beyond caring at this point. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There's absolutely no point in deliberately targeting my edits just because they don't fit your POV. Most of the article exists without third party reference, therefore it is clear that you are aiming to remove anything that you disagree with. You can't have it both ways, either accept that some material contradicts your 'theory' or have none that may confirm it. Your choice. 86.25.30.125 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at what's happened since I stopped editing, and 86 has reinstated all his/her nonsense, while DonQuxiote has now added cn tags to the one story that is unambiguously the same character. Thank you for confirming my worst fears about mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Never touched it, and if your worst fears about mankind involve people disagreeing with your monopoly over certain Wikipedia articles, then it's about time really. Just be kinder in future, accept that not everyone wants to be told what to believe. 86.25.30.125 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Er...you have everything backwards. If you have to say 'however, it was clearly the same character', then it's not unambiguous. If you can directly quote the primary source, such as 'Mortimus, otherwise known as the Monk', then it's unambiguous. Right now I'm going through my DWM #78-83 to check whether it is 'clearly the same character'.

And all that stuff you dislike isn't nonsense or fanon because it's published works of fiction. Wikipedia doesn't care about fanon or continuity or whatever but about the works of fiction as being works of fiction--publication, marketing, cultural influence, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave the page a semi-prot, hopefully it will be discussed in a civil manner. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Would the DW reference guides by Mad Norwegian Press be considered reliable sources? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 17:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. They are reliable secondary sources which discuss the primary sources (the works of fiction). As such, they would certainly be useful in this discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong emphasis

The television stories The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Master Plan get very brief points, but the other media gets long, rambling sections?

In particular, the whole novels and, especially, the Big Finish sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a recurring problem for summaries (see, for example, The Masque of Mandragora#Plot). Feel free to trim them down to the major points. DonQuixote (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Monk as a character

A character credited as 'The Monk' appears in The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Masterplan. That's the point. So please stop trying to remove all mentions of the character. DonQuixote (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And the same serials credit William Hartnell as "Doctor Who".

In addition, Geoffrey Beevers was credited as "Melkur" in The Keeper of Traken. While Derek Jacobi was credited as "Yana" in Utopia.

So, I take it you'll be creating new articles for Yana and Melkur as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seriously, he's credited as 'The Monk'. We're talking about that character. We're not talking about any other character. DonQuixote (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, for this character that's the only thing that we can go by. There are no works of nonfiction that refer to him by anything else. (That's why we're not going to start referring to him as Mortimus either.)

As for Melkur, etc.--there's works of nonfiction that explicitly state that they were meant to be the Master during the production of the episodes. DonQuixote (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Using that 'logic', then there are other Time Lords called 'Yana', 'Melkur' etc. Unless you are fixated on ONE issue for POV reasons.

And using your logic, then the main character is called 'Doctor Who'. As that's what the credits say.

Yes there are. The article even states as much.

Same with the "monk"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)

You really need to differentiate between in-universe POV and real-world POV.

In the real world

1. The Monk is a character that appeared in two serials
2. The War Chief is a character that appeared in one serial
3. The Master was created by Barry Letts and Terrence Dicks as a foil for Jon Pertwee
4. Some primary sources combined two or more of the above characters
5. Some primary sources do not
6. The Melkur was created as a character but then merged during production with the character of the Master and then presented as such during first broadcast and in promotional materials.
7. Professor Yana was created as an alias of the Master during the writing of the episode.

Etc. DonQuixote (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Missed one...

Yes there are. The article even states as much...Same with the "monk"...

I keep asking you to provide those sources. So please do so. And games are not works of nonfiction, they're games. DonQuixote (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

For example, something like this Ware, Peter. "Fact File: Utopia". bbc.co.uk. BBC. Retrieved 31 May 2020. DonQuixote (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

But that's NOT a game, is it? If you get a DVD or Blu-Ray, in addition to the actual story, there will be features, such as documentaries, making-of's on the same disc. If you buy a book(such as a novel), there will often be a foreword and/or an afterword, which gives more information about the story. Likewise, if you buy a game, it will contain information about the environment, about the characters etc. that is not actually part of the game itself. Of course, you no doubt already know that, but admission would blow your entire POV-based case out of the water. Seriously, if that's "part of the game", then every documentary, special feature, Blue Peter etc. on every DVD/Blu-Ray is also "primary in-universe narrative" material as well.

"The Monk" was credited with two serials. "The War Chief" was credited with one serial. But then, going by credits we do also have a "Professor Yana", a "Melkur" etc. So, how do we know that Melkur, Yana etc. are just other names for one other character? Promotional materials? You mean like the Doctor Who Magazine promotion for The King's Demons which explicitly stated that the villain would be the same villain from The Time Meddler? And then, of course, it turned out to be the Master?(So, they were right, of course) And, the name "Master" was first used in the Barry Letts Era. That's all. The novelisation of Terror of the Autons written by Dicks explicitly states that the name "Master" is a brand new name. Yes, that's "primary" material, but it does mean that that name would not have been used for that one character prior to Autons, and at least one other name would have been used. Meanwhile, the comic "4-Dimensional Vistas" NEVER used the word "monk". So, how do you know it's the same character? Simple, common sense. And what is said in the real world. And here's a good piece by a mainstream site [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

Of course we should USE COMMON SENSE. If the narrative establishes that the Doctor, the "Monk"(established to be a temporary disguise), the "War Chief"(established to be a rank, bot his preferred nom-de-plume) and the Master are all renegade Time Lords, but Malcolm Hulke says, as he does in an interview (re)printed in DWM 91 "There was a peculiar relationship between the Master and the Doctor: one felt that the Master wouldn't really have liked to eliminate the Doctor...you see the Doctor was the only person like him at the time in the whole universe, a renegade Time Lord and in a funny sort of way they were partners in crime." Then, it is stating the bleeding obvious that ANY renegade Time Lord at that time was either the Doctor or the Master. The "The Monk" article states that "the Monk" had a stolen TARDIS. The television serial The War Games(again co-written by Dicks) explicitly states that the "War Chief" stole a TARDIS. Whereas the Master stealing a TARDIS is established in multiple Delgado-Era media. Then in the novelisation of Colony in Space, it is explicitly stated that, up to that point, only two TARDISes have ever been stolen, one by the Doctor and one by the Master. Yes, it's "in-universe", but again we need to USE COMMON SENSE. Because thus, anyone who had stolen a TARDIS up to that point was either the Doctor or the Master. In Terrance Dicks' novelisation of The Three Doctors, Dicks himself states that, prior to Omega, the Doctor had only ever encountered ONE other renegade Time Lord..the Master. Yes, it's "primary", but again, USE COMMON SENSE. Dicks is explicitly telling us here that if the Doctor had come up against a renegade Time Lord prior to Season 10, then that renegade Time Lord is the Master. And the INFORMATION (ie. not part of the actual game) in games restates this in as many words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done. It's obvious that you have no interest in learning about primary sources, secondary sources, etc.--you're just here to advance your fan theory. I bent over backwards to take the time to explain guidelines and policies to you, but they're just falling on deaf ears and it's getting rather tiresome. From here on, if you stray outside the guidelines I'll just point to the guidelines and policies and leave it at that. Seriously, if you can't tell what a work of nonfiction is (secondary sources), then you shouldn't be trying to write a tertiary source. DonQuixote (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Like this ? [6]. And how is The Register a primary source?

By the way, I'm not "advancing my fan theory". The so-called "fan theory" is stated as plain fact in official sources. Plus., again, USING COMMON SENSE. It's like the joke about a hillbilly standing there with one woman, and saying "This is my sister and my wife". Yet there's just one woman standing there. Can you work that out? Did you know that Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde are actually the same person? Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are the same person? Did you know that 'Princess Alexandrina of Kent' and 'Queen Victoria' were actually the same woman? Or would you insist that those are all cases of two separate people? Seriously, right now this article is pushing ONE particular POV. And, you never answered how you "know" that the character in the DWM comic 4-Dimensional Vistas is the same character from the tv serial The Time Meddler. Since he is obviously never referred to as "the monk" in that comic. And nor should he have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. That's a work of nonfiction. Now to apply due weight. Since he's a critic who's expressing his analysis of the primary source (the episodes), unless a notable number of other critics come to the same conclusion, then it's a fringe theory. If more critics express the same thing as he does, then it's a popular opinion which should be reflected in this article. So, if you can find more such secondary sources, then this article will be changed to reflect that. DonQuixote (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, different primary sources state different things about The Monk and The Master. Wikipedia documents every version of the character. The fact that you're unwilling to understand that is the cause of the friction. (See Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.) DonQuixote (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Re [7], it's not OR, but it's also trivia so not worth my time on that. DonQuixote (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, but it IS OR. By the way, you still refuse to answer my question about "4-Dimensional Vistas". As the character is only ever referred to as "The Time Meddler" in that story, how can you know it is the same character as the character from the tv serial The Time Meddler?

And, more OR. A character called "Mortimus" appears in the novel No Future who is supposed to be the same character as the Peter Butterworth character in The Time Meddler(despite having a totally different backstory to him). Then, 'Mortimus' appears in the novel Divided Loyalties. Nowhere in Divided Loyalties is this 'Mortimus' referred to as "the monk"(or anything similar). I repeat..NOWHERE. So, it requires WP:OR to state that, allegedly,

We have "the monk" from The Time Meddler, we have a character from No Future called 'Mortimus'(with a totally different backstory), and then we have another character from 'Mortimus' from Divided Loyalties, who is NEVER referred to as "the Monk". (And, by the way, this 'Mortimus' has a totally different backstory to the 'Mortimus' from No Future as well.) How, then does anyone "know" that 'Mortimus' in Divided Loyalties is the same character as "the monk" in The Time Meddler? The answer is someone used the "primary source", and came to that conclusion through WP:OR. Despite the wildly differing backstories for the THREE characters. Yet, you accuse me(and others, I have read these discussion pages on Wiki) of OR, for using "primary source" material where "two characters" have IDENTICAL backstories. So, how do you explain that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't actually added any of the entries in Other appearances, so it's no use asking me about them. I assumed good faith that they were summarising the primary sources accurately. If you think that they're not doing that, then you can trim them to the major points.

As for, 4-Dimensional Vistas, I admit that I let that one slide past because I was getting tired of arguing that with another IP who had the same POV as you. Yeah, another IP who thought as you did thought differently about that one primary source. That's why we primarily rely on works of nonfiction and due weight--to avoid editors' personal opinions. DonQuixote (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Funny you "Assume good faith" when people agree with your personal fan theories, yet become rather persistent when someone adds reliably sourced material that conflicts with your personal fan theories...

And you've still "let it slide". I take it you're not actually going to answer? because to do so would be to admit that all your ranting about "primary sources", "due weight" etc. doesn't really mean anything in this case?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk • contribs)

Dude, I assumed good faith when you added the entry on the board game. It's when you pull stunts like this [8] that it's hard to assume good faith. Seriously, stop trying to erase mentions of all the other versions of the character. Wikipedia documents every version of the character.

And if you want to remove the comic strip entry, feel free to do so as I dont mind one way or the other on that. To be honest, whether it's included or not doesn't affect this article that much. DonQuixote (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this one final way, and, as I've said, I'm done trying to explain it.

Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde is an adaptation of the novel. The film does not have to have the same version of the character as the novel and vise-versa--especially if there are other adaptations (film, television, games, etc.). Similary the FASA game is an adaptation of the television programme. The game does not have to have the same version of the character as the programme and vise-versa--especially if there are other adaptations (film, games, novels, etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But you are clearly showing POV preference towards one version. As the interviews with people who worked on the series, along with the Target novelisations, various games, promotional material etc. made clear. Plus, the episode The Time Meddler made clear..."monk" is just a disguise.

Then, decades later, Paul Cornell went on a one-man crusade to split one character(No Future, Goth Opera, The Discontinuity Guide, Seasons of Fear..all written by the same person). But, using that logic, the entire Jon Pertwee Television Era was worthless, as Cornell gave it all 0/10. And the article reads very stupidly, as The Daleks' Master Plan correctly states that the "Monk" was seen on television on an icy planet, but with no control where or when his TARDIS will materialise next. Then, later, it states that he was trapped on that planet! Well, maybe in Cornell's No Future, but not in The Daleks' Master Plan.

So, that's contradictory material. Imagine how someone coming fresh to this article must feel when reading it. Two mutually incompatible statements, not that far apart. That may have been fine for a Virgin New Adventure, but it's totally unacceptable for Wikipedia.

If the answer is "We must give all versions of a character", then surely the "Monk" is just one version of the Master! There's the Sam Kisgart Master (BF Audios), the Jonathan Pryce Master (Curse of Fatal Death), the Shalka Master etc. Actually in this case, several "Monks", as Cornell's never met the Doctor before The Time Meddler, and was stranded on an ice planet. Unlike the television version. The Divided Loyalties ' Mortimus' knew the Doctor on Gallifrey, but left Gallifrey before the Doctor. He also gave atomic bazookas to the Normans, while the television version was attempting to help the Anglo-Saxons defeat the Normans. Then there's the Big Finish Garden/Hound version who actually left Gallifrey 50 years after the Doctor, really is called "the Monk"(the only one of the four to actually use that name the same way the Doctor is called 'the Doctor'), and never progresses or evolved, even across different incarnations.

If these FOUR different versions are all lumped together, and all the different Masters are all lumped together, then why the page split? After all, one of thesr four 'Monks' is unambiguously the Master? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As a suggestion, look at Joker (character). Just going by live action, there's the Cesar Romero Joker, Jack Nicholson Joker, Heath Ledger Joker, Jared Leto Joker, and Joaquin Phoenix Joker. Obviously, there are also comic book Jokers, and animated Jokers etc. But these five should suffice for the point being made here. While, they are all The Joker, there are clear biographical differences between them, even as far as whether the Joker was mobster Jack Napier, or failed stand-up comedian Arthur Fleck. Was the Joker's face that way from make-up or, acid burns? Was he the one who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne, did he incite the killings of Thomas and Martha Wayne, or was he totally unconnected to the killings of Thomas and Martha Wayne? Clearly, while all five are playing Batman villain The Joker, they are playing five different Jokers, in five different media. A single biography of "The Joker" would not, and should not include him being both loser Arthur Fleck, and the multimillionaire of the 60's Adam West Batman. That is why there is [9].

Now, is there an "Ur-Joker"? Perhaps. Is there an "Ur-Monk" in Doctor Who? Yes, it's the television show. And in this one, he wasn't a monk, he was never stranded on any ice planet etc. And, going by the the writings, interviews, promotional material of the people who actually worked on that television show, it's explicitly clear, and totally unambiguous. what happened to "the monk" after The Daleks' Master Plan. He ultimately became the Master.

Now, after the television show had gone off the air, after the Doctor Who Production Office had been shut down, other people, unrelated to the making of the television show, created their own alternative versions. Paul Cornell had his version. Gary Russell had his version. Big Finish have their version. But, these three versions are completely incompatible with each other. And, FAR more importantly, they are all totally incompatible with the character that Peter Butterworth played on television in the 1960's. Even if we only go with the two television serials, these 'Cornell Mortimus', 'Russell Mortimus', and 'Big Finish Monk' characters are all still 100% incompatible with what actually appeared on television.

So, it's not "the Monk in other media". It's "Alternative Versions of the Monk". Or, actually more accurately, "Alternative Versions of the Master" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As the interviews with people who worked on the series

You haven't provided any of those interviews. And interviews with Letts and Dicks say otherwise.

along with the Target novelisations

The novelisations are adaptations and should be treated like other adaptations.

Plus, the episode The Time Meddler made clear..."monk" is just a disguise

Yes, and that's the only disguise that we're aware of. Nothing else is mentioned in the television programme. Every other mention is in other media--adaptations.

But you are clearly showing POV preference towards one version.

Yeah, no. You're the one doing that and projecting that onto me. Every version, television, games, novels, etc., is listed in this article with due weight. The fact that you're trying to push your favourite version as the one-and-only version is the problem. And with that, I'm done. It's quite obvious that that's all you're here to do. If you're unwilling or unable to understand the difference between the original work (television programme) and it's adaptations (games, novels, etc.), then that's all on you. All I'm going to say is, please don't stray outside the guidelines. DonQuixote (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Parenthetical comments

@197.86.143.126: Leave the parenthetical comments to yourself. Unless a secondary source makes that comment, let the reader make their own connections and observations. DonQuixote (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's part of a summary of a tv episode. If that doesn't count, then most of the article should be deleted. And, your post reads like a personal attack. Try not to be so abrasive and offensive.

Then it should be part of the summary of the tv episode and not a parenthetical commentary. I mean, it's about as inappropriate as writing the following parenthetical commentary

In the "Information" section of the board game Doctor Who: The Game of Time & Space, it is stated that "the Monk", the War Chief and the Master are simply three different incarnations of the same Time Lord (although, in the television programme, the three were never said to be the same character).

Notice that it's steering the reader towards a certian interpretation and POV. I apologise that my curt comment was abrasive, but, again, please try to stay within the guidelines of writing tertiary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The article as it is now is steering the reader towards a certain interpretation and POV. It's a POV article. All that has been done is some sources have been added which slightly redress the balance.

Yeah, no. The article right now is neutral--it only documents the appearances and leaves everything open to interpretation. Stop trying to advance your POV. DonQuixote (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, Cloister Library, is a fansite that's a whole heaping pile of copyright violations and can't be used as a source. DonQuixote (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And from WP:NPOV: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. That is to say, unless you can cite those interviews or behind-the-scenes books, etc., (or more than just a couple of opinion pieces--at least ten) your POV is still fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. As usual. By the way, didn't you say that you weren't going to edit this article any more? Only for this little temper tantrum...

Er...what?...I said I wasn't going to bend over backwards to explain basic concepts to you anymore. Again, please read WP:PRIMARY, WP:DUE, etc. Also, see WP:false balance.

And...primary sources can be cited to summarise their contents, per WP:PRIMARY. DonQuixote (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No, here... [10]. Or is that a totally different person?

That's referring to not bending over backwards to explain basic concepts to you anymore. Context matters. DonQuixote (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, don't add your own commentary to the article. Wikipedia works by citing and summarising reliable sources. Any and all commentary should be from secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

^^ Irony. Yes, irony. (By the way, do you ever do anything besides stalk Wikipedia?)

Nope, nowhere near irony. And again, please try to stay within the guidelines of writing a tertiary source. DonQuixote (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You're so blinkered you can't see it. And it's hilarious that the actual television episodes get a couple of sentences, whereas the Big Finish Audios get lengthy, rambling sections of irrelevant garbage.

Yeah, no, you're just describing yourself. Again, the name of the game is citing and summarising sources--such as interviews, behind-the-scene articles, etc.

And there's more than two Big Finish audio plays featuring the Monk. Also, feel free to trim them (like I have) if you think they're too bloated. DonQuixote (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, it's laughable you're hanging so much on Lofficier's programme guide. When Lofficier is a laughing stock among many.

(edit conflict) Seriously...it's redundant to say "on television" when it's in a section title "Television" and it's the character's first appearance ever in the real world. DonQuixote (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

RE: Lofficier's programme guide, you would need to cite a reliable source saying that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Time Lord from Gallifrey?

There is nothing at all in either The Time Meddler or The Daleks Master Plan to make anyone think that the character of the Time Meddler (and NOT The Monk btw) is a Time Lord from Gallifrey.

His stolen treasures are all from Earth history. His various 'meddlings' all involve Earth history, eg. Stonehenge, Leonardo Da Vinci, a London Bank, the Battle of Hastings etc. Actually, who other than a human of British descent would even know about the long-term effects of the Battle of Stamford Bridge? Or the Battle itself, for that matter. In fact, many British people today know nothing of it.

It is also worth remembering that the Doctor of the era had one heart, and referred to himself as "a human being". Which is why the so-called "ignorant" spin-offs (World Distributors, TV Comic, Cushing movies) said the Doctor was human. In fact, the so-called "regeneration" in The Tenth Planet was 100% dependent on the technology of the TARDIS, and had nothing to do with the Doctor's physiology. He also referred to himself as "human" in Evil of the Daleks, and still had the single heart in The Wheel in Space.

It's only with Season Six that the Doctor becomes a Time Lord. (The first character identified as a Time Lord is the 'War Chief'.) And then, from that point on the Doctor is a Time Lord, and regenerations are part of his genetic make-up.

We then get Roger Delgado as the Master. And it was repeatdly stated that ONLY TWO Time Lords had ever stolen a TARDISand left Gallifrey...the Doctor and the Master. And the events of The War Games were repeatedly said to be part of the History of the Master and the Doctor. Meaning that the War Chief and the Master were unambiguously one and the same.

But, if only TWO Time Lords stole a TARDIS, then Butterworth is the Master. And this was explicitly stated in various OFFICIALLY LICENSED AND AUTHORISED spin-offs such as eg. FASA and the Board Game.

This then led to a snarky backlash, which resulted in the likes of No Future and The Book of Kells, more attempts to force "continuity" than actual stories. And today we get barrel scrapings like "Too Many Masters".

Yet, those ALL took for granted that Butterworth was playing a Time Lord. When there is NOTHING in the 65/66 stories he appeared in that even hints at that, and everything pointing to him being a human from the far future. The first actual character identified as a Time Lord was the War Chief/Master, and then the Doctor himself. And ONE dubious Lofficier book is hardly a "reliable source".

The things you dislike are also OFFICIALLY LICENSED AND AUTHORISED spin-offs--that's why all of them (FASA games, novels, Big Finish, etc.) are considered adaptations and published works in their own rights. DonQuixote (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Way to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT, Sparky. But then, that's normal for you.

Yeah, no. The point is that wikipedia doesn't consider it one continuity because it doesn't care. It only cares about documenting all the spin-offs. That's the one point you're failing to get. Seriously, publication history, that's the one-and-only-point that you should be getting. DonQuixote (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Missed it again, eh, sparky?

Seriously, stop with your disruptive edits. The Monk is a character that's appeared in multiple media. "The Monk" is the simplest way to refer to him because that's all that he's credit as. DonQuixote (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Within the television show, it's not "The Monk", it's "the monk".It's not a title or proper noun. It's a descriptive term, like "the bus driver" or "the fisherman". And even then it's not even an accurate description, as it's unambiguously a one-off disguise. Seriously, going just by the tv show, the character has no need for his own Wikipedia page any more than characters like "Second Cyberman" or "pilot" do. If you want a page for the multiple characters from the spin-offs with names like "The Monk", "The Meddling Monk" and "Mortimus", then knock yourself out. But this article is the very definitions of WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS.

If you think the character lacks notability, then start a WP:RFC or WP:DELETE. Other than that, sorry that the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s passed you by, but you're not the center of the universe. DonQuixote (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Where did that little remark come from? Who said I was? But WHAT CHARACTER? There never was a television character called "the Monk" in Doctor Who. Unless you mean in the Twelfth Doctor/Bill Potts Era? And then, there have been multiple contradictory characters across spin-offs, NONE OF WHO have anything in common with the 60's television character. "The character"?! Which one, scooter? Seriously, this article is some fan myths, stitched together, and made from whole cloth. It's a joke. And it doesn't belong on any serious encyclopaedia. Perhaps some fan fiction wiki, but not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, there's a character credit as "The Monk" in The Time Meddler and The Dalek's Masterplan. That's it. Yep, that's not his name, but that's how he's credited as and that's how he's referred to in all other media. And yeah, adaptations can have contradictory versions. That's par for the course for adaptations (see all the versions of Dracula or Sherlock Holmes).

And also, you mention fan myths that are stitched together and yet, if you read the above, that's exactly what you're doing with the novelisations and the games. Seriously, all you're really doing is projecting your own behaviour onto other people. Wikipedia doesn't care about your fan theory. Period. Wikipedia only cares about documenting the different publications. And if you think that the current level of writing isn't notable, then you can start a RFC or DELETE. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, the Big Finish productions clearly say that the Monk in their plays is the same as the one in The Time Meddler--within the plays themselves and the Backstage section here. Sorry that you consider the plays rubbish, but they're published works, and that's all that wikipedia cares about. DonQuixote (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No, bubbles. There's a character credited as "the monk")note the lack of capitalisation) in two television serials. That's it. There are also characters credited as "Saxon Hunter" and "Viking Leader" in The Time Meddler, and in The Daleks Master Plan there are "Interviewer", "Policemen", "Assistant Director" etc. Are those those characters' actual names? And do each of them warrant their own Wikipedia page? And, as stated some time ago, there are separate pages for Joker (character) and Joker in other media. And listing Garden and Hound alongside Butterworth at the top of the page is wrong on so many levels. One portrayed a character in a television show in the mid-1960's. The other two portrayed a character who doesn't even have the same name in some non-canonical fringe releases 50 years later. If you want a "Monk (Doctor Who)" article that goes into detail about the audio character portrayed by Garden and Hound, fine. But your forcibly trying to merge different things together is not what this encyclopaedia is all about. It's also ironic that you speak about [my] "fan theory", when something states something in as many words(eg. FASA), yet you happily accept that some "Meddling Monk" in Big Finish is connected to a character who was disguised as a monk. And all those UNAUTHORISED GUIDE BOOKS you point to carry less weight combined than ONE authorised book like, eg. the FASA one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you think that the Monk lacks notability, then you can start a RFC or DELETE. And, yeah, I agree that the actors from the spin-offs shouldn't be in the infobox, but that's my personal POV.

And you're missing the point again. The FASA game is an adaptation, just like the Big Finish productions--and they're both mentioned in Other media. And an adaptation carries far less weight than works of behind-the-scenes nonfiction. That's the point you're failing to get. DonQuixote (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet you push one adaptation over another. By the way, here's a contemporaneous newspaper piece, from 22 July 1965 [11]. Note "the monk, played by Peter Butterworth". NOT "the Monk". Really, there should be clear ground between what was clearly and unambiguously stated at the time, and the way someone misinterprets that decades later. And, again, YOU are clearly favouring one adaptation over another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah...no. All adaptations are listed, so I'm not the one pushing one adaptation over another--that's you, mate.

And context matters. That newspaper clipping is talking about the episode where using "the monk" is the adequate. When speaking about a character that has no name in the lede of the encyclopaedia article, "the Monk" is appropriate since it indicates that we're writing about a character that appears such-and-such media. It's not naming him "The Monk", it's just referring to "the character that appears in such-and-such that has no other simple term to describe him". See Man with No Name, where it's a description but it's capitalised per MOS when referring to the character. DonQuixote (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

And now somebody is blanket-reverting other issues.

1) The character is NEVER referred to as "the Monk" in 4-Dimensional Vistas. The article should state that.

2) The FASA Books explicitly state that the character's name is the Master, and that the Monk was just a one-off disguise. The article should state that.

3) Ditto the Board Game.

4) The "for his own amusement" is unsourced. He explicitly states in-episode in The Time Meddler WHY he's attempting to do what he's doing. And "for my own amusement" is NEVER stated.

5) There is a clear difference between what Peter Butterworth did on television, and ALL subsequent spin-off media, whether they be books, comics, audios, or anything else.

197.83.246.23 (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

And a second (?) user is doing the same now. Note how there is NO explanation. NO discussion. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Because you are a vandal who is trying to force your POV on articles against long-standing consensus. You have also been systematically deleting links to the TARDIS Data Core, again, against lomg-standing consensus, which is more than enough reason to have you banned. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Long-standing consensus"? LOL. But, it's still unsourced fan fiction nonsense. You got actual sources to back up that misinformation, go ahead. But it doesn't matter how many people all believe the same thing if it's a)garbage and b)unsourced. 197.83.246.23 (talk)》

There's no need to make the list complicated. Any further detail can be mentioned in the prose. DonQuixote (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

But he's not called "the Monk" in any of those. That's the point. Those make it 100% clear that, while they're using the same character from The Time Meddler, that character is not, and never was, called "The Monk" the way the Doctor is called "The Doctor". It's not "complicated". It's being truthful, something this article has very rarely had anything to do with. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

He's called "the Monk" in the radio plays, and Big Finish literally said that it's the same character. Their adaptations, their prerogative. DonQuixote (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So what? Seriously. Why should Big Finish retroactively dictate what FASA or Doctor Who Magazine, or anyone else, said? Big Finish can have their "Monk", but the article needs to state that those releases never called the character the Monk. Again, it's an outright LIE to try and claim that the character has been uniformly referred to as "the Monk". Stop trying to push your POV. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the FASA game is an adaptation, so it doesn't dictate anything either, just like the Big Finish productions. That's the point. Each are their own adaptations with their own versions. Wikipedia doesn't care which version is "legit"--it only documents each publication. Period. Seriously, the only one pushing a POV is you. You admit as much by lifting the FASA game above the Big Finish productions. Wikipedia treats them the same. DonQuixote (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

And, again, when we say "the Monk", we're not necessarily referring to it as his name--it's shorthand for "the monk that appears in the Time Meddler". DonQuixote (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No. It's you pushing an untruth. The appearances need to explain what the character is actually called in those appearances. There is no character called the Monk in any of those books, comic etc. Stop trying to lie. You know the truth. You want this article to be called "the Monk". But what you're proposing isn't 'shorthand'. It's deliberately trying to hide the truth. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

They're already explained (or can be explained) in the prose. And, dude, there's even a running gag in the Big Finish productions where the Monk complains that he's not even a monk/that's not his name. Seriously, you need to get over your one-and-only-one version of the character fixation--the decades of adaptations have passed you by and you're not the center of the universe. DonQuixote (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. And it does not matter about "running gags". It's about accuracy, not what you think. By the way, if Big Finish agree that that's not his name, then why the hell do they call him that? And I'm not fixated on one issue. YOU are. Like it or not, there is much that says he's the Master. And, yes, there's much that says his real name is actually "Mortimus", NOT "The Monk". Your 'reasoning' is Big Finish STORIES in-universe. And you now say even they don't say what you're claiming. We need total truth, not just your one belief. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Er...what? Dude, you need to step back from in-universe continuity. These are works of fiction. They don't have to be consistent with each other. They can use whatever characters they want--they can use whatever versions of the characters they want. Seriously, can you not tell the difference between fiction and reality? The FASA game is a game with its own versions of the characters. The Big Finish productions are audio plays with their own versions of the characters. They don't have to be dependent upon one another. The source material (the television programme) doesn't have to be dependent on either adaptation.

And I mentioned the running gag to point out that "the Monk" isn't a name, like you're adamantly suggesting that we're doing. You really need to work on your reading comprehension (or critical thinking) on that one. DonQuixote (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So you're changing your position now? YOU need to actually think about what you post. Basically, there was an UNNAMED character who appeared in one serial of Doctor Who, and then one-quarter of another serial less than a year later. End. Then, and pay close attention, the earliest reliable sources stated that he was the same character as the Master. And this was the default position for many years. I know you don't like that, and "it's before your time", but deal with it. Then, yes, there were later sources that stated that no, he's not the Master, and he never was. And I can accept that. But, and pay even closer attention, they mostly also agreed that he's not called 'the Monk'. And, these sources also totally contradict each other. And now Big Finish are doing what they're doing, Although ALL these other sources, both saying he's the Master AND saying he's not the Master, but not called 'the Monk' either were around long before Rufus Hound played this "Monk" character(and you say that he's not even called 'the Monk' after all...), and this article needs to reflect that. Not just your personal preference. This may be one of the more convoluted and self-contradictory aspects of Doctor Who, which is saying a lot. Pretending it's possible to simply say "The Monk is a character.." and then list all these appearances as though he is called "the Monk", and was always called that is a blatant lie. Plain and simple. Like it or not, he was known as 'the Master' for some time. Like it or not, he was known as 'the Time Meddler' at one stage. Like ti or not, he was known as 'Mortimus' for some time. And not just in-narrative, but real-world too. Just because you like listening to Rufus Hound or Graeme Garden doesn't simplify anything. Actually, you're making it more difficult than it needs to be. if this is all too complex for you, then yeah, you know what to do... It's NOT pushing my POV to say that there are reliable sources that he's the Master, and at the same time, it's not pushing my POV to say that he was never even a Time Lord at all. And it's not pushing my POV to say he's a Time Lord who's not the Master, but was never actually called 'the Monk' either. All that, and more, is true. Like it or not. Dude.197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok...it's quite apparent that you don't know or care to know what primary sources and secondary sources are nor what the difference between works of fiction and nonfiction are. It's quite clear that you don't know or care to know the difference between an original source material and its adaptations. Seriously, with characters like Dracula and Sherlock Holmes floating around, how can you not understand that there can be more than one version of a character in multiple media? These sources [that] also totally contradict each other are different individual works of fiction with their own version of the characters. They don't have to agree with each other and it's not wikipedia's place to make them agree with each other. We're only here to document each publication and leave our POVs and comments to ourselves. What you want is a fan wiki or a fan page. Please go to one of those or create one of your own. DonQuixote (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's you, skippy. You were the one trying to remove the fact that the character very clearly is NOT called "the Monk" in everything. You're clearly some Big Finish fanboy.

Seriously? The page already mentions those things. They don't need to be mentioned everywhere. DonQuixote (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

They do if not mentioning them gives a false impression. As an example, the character appears in Divided Loyalties. However, nowhere in Divided Loyalties is the character ever referred to as "the Monk". Every time the name is mentioned it's "Mortimus". Likewise, the character appears in the The Master and the Master CIA File Extracts books. However, without mentioning that he appears as the title character of said books, the casual reader would get the impression that he appears as a separate character called "the Monk", alongside the Master. Yes, Divided Loyalties and Master contradict each other, but the one thing they have in common is they both explicitly use names other than "the Monk" for the character. And without mentioning that in the relevant place, the reader will get a completely inaccurate idea about what the contents actually are. Although that appears to be what you're trying to achieve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, that's already mentioned. Lists are supposed to be simple. Any details can be read in the prose. DonQuixote (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is simple the eay it is. And, unlike your preferred version, it gives accurate information. Whereas you are trying to make the list deliberately deceptive.

Dude, it's accurate without the names. It's just a list of appearances. Nothing "deceptive" about a list of titles. And, again, the reader can read the prose for more detailed information. Again, it doesn't have to be mentioned everywhere. DonQuixote (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

But it gives a false impression without the actual naming conventions. That's the point, skippy. Please just stop. You know what you're saying is wrong. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

See response in #Cont DonQuixote (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Cont

The novelisation establishes he has a past history with the Doctor before The Time Meddler

Again, the character is NOT universally called "the Monk". DonQuixote is sneakily removing valid information, to give a distorted view of what those books etc. really say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to settle down, mate. Seriously, those things are already mentioned in the prose. There's no need to clutter up the list. Keeping the list as a simple list of titles is simplest.

And the novelisation is vague on that, but I'll give you that one. But it seems like scraping the bottom of the barrel on that one. DonQuixote (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Vague? Look, Blippi, you need to understand that YOU are the one pushing YOUR POV. Whether you like it or not, that information is real, and sourced. You trying to delete material because it doesn't fit with your headcanon is just vandalism. Just because you like "running gags" in Big Finish. FASA is 100% real and valid. 4-Dimensional Vistas is 100% real and valid etc. "But, oh, Big Finish says that he's called the Monk!" That's just one position. and even then that's "According to Big Finish..." Notice how, eg. FASA says that "FASA states...", whereas Big Finish is treated as Gospel. Why do the comics and books get a single line or so, whereas the Big Finish stuff each gets its own novella? Perhaps it's time to prune... 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Big Finish isn't treated as gospel. You're just mad because we're not treating the FASA game as gospel. Neither one of them should be treated as gospel. Both of them are documented as publications. DonQuixote (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeas, but you clearly want to show favouritism to one over the other. That is easily apparent.

No, that's just you, mate. I treat the FASA game equally with the Big Finish productions. Based on the rantings about your dislike for the audio plays and the novels and such, it's clearly you that wants to lift the FASA game above all else. Sorry that treating things equally with neutrality is being "biased" in your eyes. DonQuixote (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Mate? Are you also an Aussie? Sling a wallaby on the barbie, sheila. Nyuk nyuk. And, no, you're definitely NOT "treating things equally". You are clearly favouring the Briggsian interpretation. That Big Finish stuff is longer than the rest of the article combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.23 (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, in what way am I favouring the Briggsian interpretation? And, again, you can trim anything extraneous from the Big Finish stuff, but there's been 12 appearances so it might be a little difficult. DonQuixote (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You insist that the character has always been called "the Monk". However, that name had been dropped decades ago, and only reappeared as the character name in more recent times. Gain, whether he was declared to be the same character as the Master or not, nothing called him "the Monk" as the character name until people like you forced a POV. And your attempts to delete the relevant information from the list of appearances. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, never insisted that the character has always been called "the Monk".

When speaking about a character that has no name in the lede of the encyclopaedia article, "the Monk" is appropriate since it indicates that we're writing about a character that appears such-and-such media. It's not naming him "The Monk", it's just referring to "the character that appears in such-and-such that has no other simple term to describe him". See Man with No Name, where it's a description but it's capitalised per MOS when referring to the character.

In fact, what you're misremembering is just me providing a single counterpoint to your statement But he's not called "the Monk" in any of those., to which I replied He's called "the Monk" in the radio plays, and Big Finish literally said that it's the same character. That's not me favouring Big Finish, that's just using Big Finish as an example.

And, as I keep mentioning, you haven't cited a work of behind-the-scenes nonfiction where the Monk was declared to be the same character as the Master. Until you do that, all we can say is "in the FASA game the Monk (or, rather, the character that appeared in The Time Meddler) was declared to be the same character as the Master" or "in the board game...etc."--similar to how we only state "in the novels he's also called Mortimus", etc. Again, he's not "called the Monk", we just write "the Monk" rather than using the long "the character that appeared in The Time Meddler" every single time that he's mentioned. And that goes for the list too. The list is for "the character that appeared in The Time Meddler", and any names used in that appearance is extraneous to the list and can be read in the prose section. DonQuixote (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's what you're pushing for, boyo.

if we refer to the television serials, then the character is credited as "the monk". You want to capitalise that, ok. You want to claim that the character's proper name/title is, and always has been, "the Monk". No. You want to falsely claim that the character is identified as "the Monk"(proper name/title) in multiple sources, both real-world and in-narrative. Absolutely not.

Yes, he's called "the Monk" in Big Finish. But he's NOT called that in the novels, comics, etc. not in the FASA Books, not in the board game. And, being 100% truthful, he's NOT called "the Monk"(capitalised) in the original television serials either. It is ONLY Big Finish who have taken this approach. In the FASA Books(plus the non-FASA board game) he is unambiguously called "the Master". Then, Doctor Who Magazine took the stance that he's NOT "the Master", but his proper name/title is "The Time Meddler". Then, the novels took the official stance that he's not the Master, but his proper name/title is "Mortimus". And this was uniform across the Virgin and BBC Books. And, as shown, in the 60's he's "the monk" lower case, descriptive, indicating that it is not, and never was, his actual name. The only real problem, besides you, is "Is he the Master or not"? Even if we were to agree that he's NOT that Master(which ain't gonna happen as there are both real world and in-narrative materials saying that he IS), that still wouldn't make him "the Monk". Yes, he was credited as 'the monk' in his original two tv appearances. You want to capitalise that, whatever. But please don't outright lie and say that, because Big Finish now have some one-dimensional plot device in their fringe audios called "the Monk", that every appearance he has ever made was as "the Monk". because that's a blatant lie. In those novels, those short stories, those comics, those INFORMATION section that ACCOMPANIED the games, in the INFORMATION section that ACCOMPANIED the board game, he was NEVER called "the Monk". And he wasn't even "the Monk" on television. There he was "the monk". Get it? Got it?197.83.246.23 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok...it's quite apparent that you have a reading comprehension problem...so I'm done trying to explain things to you (again). Please try to stay within the guidelines of writing a tertiary source. DonQuixote (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to be insulting. But then that's the common response for someone who knows they're losing a discussion, isn't it? Again, by NOT making clear what the character was called, it is being misleading. Whether or not the same information is contained elsewhere in this ridiculously overlong article is not the point. Because not everyone is going to read right through. In fact, it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that someone may JUST want to see the "list of appearances". So, that information in that section is far MORE relevant than the inflated "Big Finish recap" section. Do YOU understand that? Or do YOU lack the comprehension? Maybe you should try and find a kiddies wiki where you can edit. Or go poke some jello with a stick or something. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to be insulting. But then that's the common response for someone who knows they're losing a discussion, isn't it?

[12][13][14][15] Four false personal attacks, all insults of vandalism. Pot, kettle, black. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. That's not a personal attack. Try and learn the difference. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether it's a personal attack is defined by the editor is was directed to, not the editor it was from. None of those edits were vandalism. Maybe you should read our policies. Do you understand that? Or do you lack the comprehension? -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

^ this clearly IS a personal attack. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's very interesting that three users not only believe the exact same nonsense, push the exact same POV/OR ::::::::::garbage, but also use the exact same phrases. Two are known to be from Australia, while the third has repeatedly used ::::::::::"mate".

And all two of them "just suddenly" appeared to parrot what the third was saying, at the exact same time as the third ::::::::::was clearly losing a discussion on key issues about this article. I wonder if "they" lack the comprehension for that? 197.83.246.23 (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh. So you admit to personal attacks. It's almost like nobody agrees with you, so you feel a need to make assumptions to make yourself feel better. Get the hint, and stop beating a dead horse, you're fighting a losing battle. Nothing's changing here for you. Byebye. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I admitted nothing of the sort. Clearly you are the one lacking comprehension. Give it up. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I used your own quote. Nothing's changing, consensus is against you. Happy editing! -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What "consensus"? You have no clue what you're even speaking about, little boy. Why not stick to something more age-appropriate? 197.83.246.23 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Point to me, where's the editorial support for your changes? Anyone agreeing with you? No? Consensus against you. Nothing's changing. And stop editing other's posts. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no "consensus". It's just you. But even if this imaginary "consensus" if yours happened to be true, if wouldn't matter a scrap. Because Wikipedia is about WP:RS, not about ±what the Potato Head Kids all agree to be true. Go back to your treehouse until you comprehend that. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ps. You haven't even defined what specifically you object to in bullet points. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Three editors against one. And these "sock" accusations are getting old; if you really think we're all one account, go open up a sock investigation, we'll wait. Guarantee nothing comes of it. And WP:CONSENSUS is actually policy, so... Nothing's changing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No. If you an't even say what it is that you're objecting to, other than throwing a temper tantrum for its own sake, then you have nothing to add. But then you never did have anything to add, did you, scooter? Seriously, at least TRY and say something like "This sentence is wrong because.." or "The article needs to state that...". But you can't even do that. Or you won't do that. or perhaps both. You are justa rguing for its own sake. So whatever you have to sya is utterly irrelevant, and cna be safely ignored. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The key issue.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sources for the Monk being the first of the Doctor's race shown onscreen

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

No, it's 10 sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)