Talk:Great Intelligence

Original vs Splintered Intelligences
So I wrote the part about the Intelligence planning simultaneous invasions as a way of making sense, i.e. destroying the world with snow when the Robot Yetis were already being constructed. But this is assuming that the Intelligence has been the same individual throughout The Snowmen, The Abominable Snowmen, The Web of Fear, Downtime, Millennial Rites, and The Bells of Saint John. Or is it that the Intelligence in these adventures could be different Intelligences created after the original is splintered in The Name of the Doctor? Steed ☎  19:59, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I figured out they are all the same, because in Bells it knows who UNIT are, so the it has to be the same individual, meaning the Intelligence wasn't "born again and again" like Clara supposedly was. Steed ☎  20:43, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have to be, actually. Clara was able to remember (subconsciously) her Doctor-saving purpose, wasn't she? Being of vastly superhuman intelligence, it is not at all surprising that the Intelligence might remember more details of his other lives. Not that I think the evidence is sufficient to actually declare that any number of the Intelligence's appearances were "splinters", but it could very well be. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:32, September 21, 2018 (UTC)

Dead?
Is the Great Intelligence dead? Even if being part of the Doctor's time stream was enough to kill it, thanks to history changing the Doctor didn't die at Trenzalore, and thus the Great Intelligence's scheme of entering the Doctor's tomb there should be wipe out from history meaning he should be out there in some form. User: Redjirachi 14:42 October 10, 2014 (NZT)
 * This is part of a larger debate that's been going on since The Time of the Doctor aired. People have questioned how Clara could've entered the Doctor's time stream if he didn't die at Trenzalore. Personally, I think it's possible for both realities to coexist but that's just my take on it. For now, it's probably safe to assume the Intelligence is still dead until we hear otherwise. Slughorn42 ☎  01:54, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember, the Doctor's grave in Name of the Doctor didn't actually contain his body, only a representation of his timestream that could be used to enter it. It is entirely possible that as a self-sustaining Bootstrap paradox, the Doctor could, at some point, set up this "grave" as he remembers visiting it, without ever needing to die in the process. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:11, July 30, 2018 (UTC)

Yog-Sothoth
While one short story does allege that the GI is, this article should not be turned into one which is about both Yog-Sothoth and the GI. Y-S, and the broader Cthulhu Mythos, are discussed elsewhere in DWU fiction, making it difficult to claim that Y-S absolutely and positively equates to the GI. A separate page should be created about Y-S, and then that page should have a link. (Careful observers will note a slightly muddled deletion rationale for that template in the page history; please ignore the rationale on my first edit from today.)  16:03: Tue 22 Sep 2015
 * What piece of DWU fiction even implies that Y-S is not the Great Intelligence? Certainly nothing we have yet referenced on this wiki. All-Consuming Fire, Millennial Rites and the Lethbridge-Stewart short story I imagine you are referring to all make this precise link. Divided Loyalties refers to Y-S and makes no more reference to the being, in no way contradicting these sources. The only DWU sources which refers to any Old Ones as creatures featured in fiction in the DWU is The Taking of Planet 5, which most definitely does not refer to Y-S. If we are going to separate Y-S from this article, then evidently we should create articles for Lloigor, Hastur, Cthulhu, etc. And if not, then its pretty clear that the article for Y-S can only be supported by real world info, something completely invalid on this wiki. RogerAckroydLives ☎  12:52, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing that is certain is that The Snowmen asserts that the Great Intelligence has bugger-all to do with any Great Old One, though it doesn't make any statement about the existence or nonexistence of something named Yog-Sothoth as a separate entity. I think that alone warrants a separate page for Yog-Sothoth, in much the same way that The Other warrants a separate page from The Doctor even if the Other's creator didn't mean for him to anything else than the Doctor's past self. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:37, December 13, 2018 (UTC)

Biography:The Snowmen
In case you were unaware PROSE: The Forgotten Son firmly places the events of Series 7 (Doctor Who) at the end of the GI's life. TheChampionOfTime ☎  17:10, March 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, to be honest, it's highly irrelevant what the non-BBC novel thinks of the placement of Doctor Who stories that it doesn't even have the proper rights to talk about.


 * It's gotten to the point that this article is almost lying about the events of The Snowmen just because we like the idea of everything "fitting." In one edit, User:BananaClownMan removed a passage about the episode because "As it's been retcon to after TWoF, the reference is lost." The passage itself was the part about how the Doctor gives the GI a map of the underground as a blatant way to say "Hey, this is set before The Web of Fear." That is an obvious example of removing facts because they don't fit the pretty little narrative set in stone by a book that didn't even have the rights to do what it did.


 * If you were to ask Moffat about the placement of The Snowmen, he would say that it's before TAS. He would not be phased by someone with half a copyright wanting to change that. And neither should we.


 * It's obvious to me that we've been doing a really weird, unbalanced job of covering these novels. When BBV or The Faction Paradox did a half-Doctor-appearance or mentioned something that they didn't have the rights to, then we would not accept this as a proper appearance of that idea. But we don't put the LBS books to this standard because they play to our desire to put things in order, even if it doesn't make any sense. So we say "The TARDIS appears in PROSE: Legacies" and "Walter Simeon appears in PROSE: The Forgotten Son," when neither of those concepts are owned by anyone involved in these books.


 * Policy is policy. We can't stand by and accept double-standards based around which books we like and which ones we don't. OS25 (Talk) 12:32, April 29, 2017 (UTC)


 * Erm there is one problem with your reasoning is that LWB novels got their license to produce the books from the Estate of Mervyn Haisman and Henry Lincoln which meant that they can do what they like in rewriting the continuity of the Inteligence. Your logic about the novels means that we should disregard anything from the Virgin era as well.


 * Also Another account suggested that the Great Intelligence was created under much more simple means, when Walter Simeon began speaking to a snowman created with a low-level telepathic field. The snowman reflected his most dark of beliefs and thoughts, and he eventually formed his own consciousness. (TV: The Snowmen) isn't true The Snowman does not suggest that that's the creation of the Inteligence, just that the inteligence was in the snow, as it's creation in the 19th century would then make The Abominable Snowman wrong as Padmasambhava was possessed by it in the 16th century. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 15:34, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

They may have the right to use the intelligence, but they by no means have the rights to The Snowmen, the TARDIS, the Eleventh Doctor, or even Walter Simeon. And, yes, The Snowmen indeed clearly says that the Intelligence was created by the snow.


 * DOCTOR: The snow emits a low level telepathic field.


 * CLARA: My snowman.


 * DOCTOR: It seems to reflect people's thoughts and memories and because it's unusual, somehow it carries a previous shape and-

...


 * DOCTOR: How long has the Intelligence been talking to you?


 * SIMEON: I was a little boy. He was my snowman. He spoke to me.


 * SNOWMAN [memory]: They're silly.


 * DOCTOR: But the snow doesn't talk, does it. It's just a mirror.


 * WALTER [memory]: I don't want to talk to them. They're silly.


 * SNOWMAN [memory]: They're silly.


 * DOCTOR: It just reflects back everything we think and feel and fear.


 * WALTER [memory]: I don't need anyone else.


 * SNOWMAN [memory]: Don't need anyone else.


 * DOCTOR: You poured your darkest dreams into a snowman and look, look what it became.


 * VASTRA: I don't understand.


 * DOCTOR: It's a parasite feeding on the loneliness of a child and the sickness of an old man. Carnivorous snow meets Victorian values and something terrible is born

...


 * SNOWMAN: Now the dream outlives the dreamer and can never die. Once I was the puppet. Now I pull the strings! I tried so long to take on human form. By erasing Simeon, you made space for me. I fill him now.

...

There's literally a point in the episode where the Doctor uses his sonic to turn the GI's voice into Walter's as a child. The Forgotten Son tries to retcon a story that it has to ownership of just because it gets in the way of the head-canon of the writers. And we should not just take their accusations at face-value. Because, indeed, it would be insane to over-ride half of the dialogue in a televised story by Steven Moffat to make room for a novel series that the BBC did not approve of, that has no connections to Moffat, and that has no rights to use any elements created for The Snowmen. OS25 (Talk) 15:55, April 29, 2017 (UTC)


 * We kinda don't know if they asked Moffat if we can do it but that's just speculation on my part. Isn't there are a policy on here that days both points of review are equally valid even if they are contradictory. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 19:37, April 29, 2017 (UTC)


 * And there's also a policy which states that The Mistress is not Romana II. If a character is not properly licensed, then we can't see them as the character that they're meant to be. By the same logic, we can't universally over-haul a story's main plot and structure because of a retcon created by a book that didn't have the authorization to do such a thing. OS25 (Talk) 19:54, April 29, 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added as much to the article as our policies allow. OS25 (Talk) 21:49, April 29, 2017 (UTC)