Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-25117610-20170125214051

CzechOut wrote: As for treating the Shalka and Series 1 somehow equally, I'm not sure how you could. As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Heggessey did a serious Shalka smackdown. There is no reasonable way to interpret that September 2003 announcement of Series 1, when Shalka is still in some stage of production, as anything other than one department "winning" Doctor Who, and the other one "losing" it.

CzechOut wrote: But it was perfectly obvious in 2003, when Shalka was released, that Grant wasn't going to be the Doctor "for real" and that the RTD series was the genuine article. So when the wiki was set up in 2005, the memory of all this was fresh in the minds of everyone who was here. It didn't occur to anyone to suggest that somehow REG was "legitimate". Later, once we had more formalised rules about validity, there was no need to hold a discussion about it. It just was patently obvious that Eccleston was the Ninth Doctor and REG was, as Wikipedia still has it, only the "Shalka Doctor".

These two arguments seem way stonger to me than anything else stated on the rest of the thread. And, going by CzechOut's coments: the BBC (aka, the ones who holds the copyrights for DW, as much as this thread is concerned), favoured Series 1 as part of the DWU, not Scream of the Shalka. The "abortion" of future webcasts with Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) also back this up.