Talk:Fugitive Doctor

Sources

Some references that might come in handy - haven't read through them yet:

• https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jo-martin-first-black-doctor-21373790
• https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/28/doctor-who-jo-martin-becomes-first-bame-actor-to-play-the-doctor

-- Chuq (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Mirror is a very unreliable source and must absolutely be avoided. Same for The Sun. Spectritus (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we move this page back to the mainspace?

There seems like enough sources and information about this topic now to justify moving it back to the mainspace. What do others think? This is Paul (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to Fugitive Doctor, at least. Who decided on that? It is certainly not an official designation of this regeneration. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure. We've referred to her as the Ruth Doctor in our synopsis of "The Timeless Children" so perhaps that's one idea, or Ruth (Doctor Who). This is Paul (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Referring to the Doctor as 'they'?

The article says (of the Doctor) "They travel in time and space in their time capsule". This is absurd use of pronouns! The Doctor is a single person, not a "they". "They" cannot be used in reference to a single person! The Doctor should be referred to by pronouns fitting of his/her gender at the point in question. If the gender is completely unknown at that point and cannot even be vaguely speculated, then "he/she" would be far better, to indicate a single person, or just default to "he", since almost the entire heritage of the character is male. But using "they" is simply bizarre. Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Singular they has been in use for eight CENTURIES, and is of perfectly optimal use to refer to a character who has appeared as either male or female throughout their depictions. Radagast (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The article you linked to is a different kind of "singular they". That's talking about unknown individuals, like you might say "Whoever reads this can draw their own conclusion" or "I'm going to ask a doctor and see what they say.". That kind of language is indeed perfectly fine and has been in use for centuries - but it's strictly for unknown individuals. What this article has done is to refer to a known individual as "they", which just isn't standard English, and looks very confusing, like a plural.

Let's consider transsexuals. Would a Wikipedia biography about a transwoman say "they grew up in New York"? Or "they spent most of their lives living in America"? Isn't it standard practise when discussing transsexuals to use pronouns pertaining to one specific gender - be it the current, preferred, or at-the-time gender? As someone who has changed sex, the Doctor would not seem to be any different, here. Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The doctor (and all time lords) can change sex back and forth, ergo they are a they. And apparently you missed the part about how “they” is used in contemporary times to refer to known individuals without strictly masculine/feminine gender identities (like the doctor, who once again is both male and female in gender identity intermittently) Dronebogus (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Before the First Doctor

I feel like, while it is heavily implied that this Doctor is a pre-Hartnell Doctor, I feel like it isn't outright confirmed, and the wording in the article should be changed to reflect this. Landfish7 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Not the First Non-White performer to play the Doctor

Peter Davidson is a white passing Black Man. As seen in this article with photo album , his father was a Black Guyanan. That would make him Black, or "mixed-race" in cultures that don't follow the one drop rule. TheMist84 (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think including this viewpoint would negatively affect the neutrality of the article by giving the claim undue weight. Landfish7 (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

How is the actor themself stating their background a claim with undue weight? TheMist84 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's due weight if you mention the above in Davison's article. It's undue weight if you put it in this article because you need to cite a reputable source that discusses the above with respect to the topic of this article. That is to say, we need a reputable source to state what you're trying to state rather than some random wikipedia editor stating it (ie, you or I et al.). DonQuixote (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Russell t davies

"the Fugitive Doctor is regarded as too contradictory a change in continuity to be considered a retcon. Therefore, it can only be explained through the supernatural, serving as a catalyst for his more supernatural themed second tenure on Doctor Who" what is technically wrong with this explanation. It can't be explained by science can it? Because it can't be manoeuvred with the first Doctor, they both can't be true. It being supernatural makes sense because anything goes. I think the above phrase should be added I'm where it was Blob02 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable secondary source that says anything like that. DonQuixote (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

But if for a second we disregard citations. You agree it can only make sense by the supernatural? Blob02 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. Wikipedia works by summarising already published materials. DonQuixote (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

oooh get you Blob02 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be added i just wanted to talk with a fellow fan. Blob02 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/DoctorWho DonQuixote (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

? Blob02 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is for the discussion of writing an encyclopaedia article. For talking with other fans, Facebook, etc. are appropriate venues. DonQuixote (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)