Talk:First Doctor

Rassilon Era?
'Rassilon Era' suggests the time on Gallifrey when Rassilon was alive - is this correct? The use of it here and on the other Doctor pages suggests that the Doctor came from a period when Rassilon was still alive. Do we know that for a fact? Or, does 'Rassilon Era' apply to all Gallifreyan time after Rassilon? What is the origin of this phrase in the TV story or in the books etc? --Mantrid 03:30, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

it comes from the TVM. as well as a date, it gave the era. since I do not have a DVD of the TVM, I consulted the episode guide on the BBC site, which mentioned the Rassilon Era as one of the eras. presumbably this means the Gallifreyan present or in the 2005 series the post-Gallifreyan present. --*Stardizzy* 04:13, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * This website says the Rassilon Era is pre-Doctor. http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/o/origindr.htm --MJP 15:34, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

to use an analogy, Christian Era (CE) does not mean the time during which Jesus walked the Earth. it means the era dated by Christians as beginning at the birth of Jesus and continuing to now, versus BCE, meaning Before Christian Era.

besides which, the International Hero site mentioned the Rassilon era, not the Rassilon Era, as we would, say, talk about the Thatcher era or the Clinton era. not a formal designation, as such. --*Stardizzy* 23:01, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually CE stands for Common Era and BCE Before Common Era.--The Doctor 19:03, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

yes, it does mean Common Era. and I remember mentioning that in a comment in this very Wiki. [sighs]

since writing the above, I did find that, yes, it did get confirmed in both the TVM and the DWM comic "The Final Chapter" that Rassilon Era refers to the Gallifreyan present. even though the dating system itself itself seems pretty inscrutable. --*Stardizzy* 21:07, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clairfication on this point. I think it's important that we ramain canoncial in the info boxes. So, the fact that 'Rassilon Era' is mentioned in the TVM is the curcial point here. Had it ONLY been mentioned in The Final Chapter I don't think that would have been enough reason to make use of it. --Mantrid 17:06, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --*Stardizzy* 07:15, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Split up some information?
Does the Doctor's pre-exile biography belong on a separate page? --***Stardizzy*** 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Medusa Cascade
The Tenth Doctor mentioned that he had visited the Medusa Cascade at the age of 90. Surely this falls within the Doctor's first incarnation? --User:Crainun 15:31, 30th July 2008
 * I personally think it would. however, the Doctor gives wildly inconsistent accounts of his age at various points in his life. --Stardizzy2 15:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He may have also been taking about his overall age - remember he must have been born in a body so could have been over 100 before the first doctor was seen on screen. --LuisFernandoLopez 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect problem
The Doctor and the Enterprise for some reason redirects to this page. Yet there is no "redirected" notice when this happens. What the smeg is going on? ZeldaTheSwordsman 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

His first body or first regeneration?
Ok, is this his first body ie the one he was born in, or is this after his first regeneration. If it is just his first body then it would mean we could have 13 Doctors and not only 12. Does anyone know if he had regenerated before this. --LuisFernandoLopez 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He refers to himself as "the original" in T5D and there are a few other references, such as some quite explicit language in Mawdryn Undead, that back this up. Thus it is generally accepted that William Hartnell played the very first Doctor. On the other hand, The Brain of Morbius implies that there were not just one, but several previous Doctors. Most fans simply ignore this, though there are also various fan explanations for the discrepancy. 69.154.188.179 05:21, January 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * There are multiple references on-screen that this is his first, "original" body. Time Lords do have twelve regenerations, so yes that would mean they have thirteen bodies/incarnations. The other faces seen in the mind-bending sequence in "The Brain of Morbius" are most easily explained as having been previous incarnations of Morbius (the other Time Lord in the contest). Spreee 20:00, March 1, 2010 (UTC)Spreee

Built, Grown, Stolen
I'm not sure why this is so hard to reconcile. One could build a computer for a friend and then steal it from him. So too could the Doctor have built/grown the TARDIS for some other person/institution only to have wound up stealing it for his own use.(86.1.172.195 05:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

In a deleted scene in Journey's End, The Doctor gave the clone a piece of the TARDIS. He said it took millions of years to grow. 86.15.106.0 13:31, August 10, 2010 (UTC) Unregistered Contributor

The singular heartbeat
In the episode "The Edge of Destruction", Ian claims that the Doctor's "heartbeat" is steady - this links in with the theory that Time Lords that have been born rather than Loomed have one heart until they regenerate. Doesn't this prove that the Doctor was born rather than Loomed? BlueBox 21:28, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't necessarily mean anything, except that Ian didn't know to check for a second heartbeat. In later stories, there's indication that you only really hear the one heart which is on the side of the chest you're listening to. Ian, not being a doctor, may not have noticed any "echo" from a second heart, if there was one. The "Looming concept" of course has never been brought up or referenced anywhere in the TV series, and is arguably contradicted by a few references. Spreee 20:07, March 1, 2010 (UTC)Spreee
 * Problem with that theory is that The End of Time establishes that the heartbeat of a Time Lord is definitely four beats, rather than two beats with echoes. And The Christmas Invasion proves that a 19-year-old shopgirl can tell when a Time Lord's second heart isn't beating. These two things taken together suggest that Ian wouldn't need to have a medical background to have noticed a non-human heartbeat. Still, as to BlueBox's original point, looming is a concept that frankly has little traction outside Lungbarrow — a low-selling book that effectively ended a range of Doctor Who fiction. And you've got the chicken side when the egg side is the one you want. It's not that The Edge of Destruction proves something said in Lungbarrow, but rather that Lungbarrow gave an explanation for why the First Doctor appeared to have only one heart.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 02:04, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rassilon's statement about the heartbeat of a timelord doesn't mean anything. It just means that if you had a device that is more advanced than a stethoscope, and can hear both hearts at once, you would hear the "sound of drums." Ian didn't know that the Doctor had 2 hearts, so he checked the left side of the doctor's chest, and assumed that that was his only heart. Rose presuably knew that the Doctor had 2 hearts, so she put the stethoscope, on both sides of his chest, and couldn't hear anything when it was on his right side. The TV series makes it clear that a timelord is born from 2 parents, just like humans are, and they are born with 2 hearts.Gowron8472 20:05, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it really makes it clear one way or the other, it just shows things that could suggest but not prove either. I think they do that on purpose so Fans can decide what they want to believe themselves rather then being forced to know something whether or not they want, plus it helps keep the mystery of the Doctor going which is of course one of the main traits that keeps people interested. He'll always be mysterious but you watch because every now and then something new is revealed. GrimmShadows 15:52, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it really makes it clear one way or the other, it just shows things that could suggest but not prove either. I think they do that on purpose so Fans can decide what they want to believe themselves rather then being forced to know something whether or not they want, plus it helps keep the mystery of the Doctor going which is of course one of the main traits that keeps people interested. He'll always be mysterious but you watch because every now and then something new is revealed. GrimmShadows 15:52, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it really makes it clear one way or the other, it just shows things that could suggest but not prove either. I think they do that on purpose so Fans can decide what they want to believe themselves rather then being forced to know something whether or not they want, plus it helps keep the mystery of the Doctor going which is of course one of the main traits that keeps people interested. He'll always be mysterious but you watch because every now and then something new is revealed. GrimmShadows 15:52, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Gap down the side
What's with the gap down the left side of this article? At a glance I can't see anything abnormal in the code. Tardis1963 04:39, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Departure from Gallifrey
Article currently says (but perhaps not for much longer):
 * For reasons that have yet to be fully revealed, at some point the Doctor broke the Time Lords law on non-interference in the time line and/or culture of an alien race. Rather than face his punishment, he stole an outdated and possibly run-down Type 40 TARDIS and fled Gallifrey . ..

What the heck? Where are we getting that from? I've never heard anything remotely like that. He wasn't a criminal before he left Gallifrey, surely. He was a criminal because he left Gallifrey. Anyone got a source for anything that says something close to what we're asserting?  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 20:29, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Leaving gallifrey.
I have nothing to back this up with, but I'm under the impression that he leaves Gallifrey because his sense of justice cannot allow him to let oppression exist in the universe, a standpoint which is in complete contrast to the Gallifreyans strict adherence to a policy of non- interference. His activities after leaving Gallifrey are what makes him a criminal to his own people.

THat doesn't quite fit in with the First Doctor's personality in the TV series. At first, he seemed to be travelling through space and time because of scientific curiosity, and was uninterested in helping people. It wasn't until later that his sense of justice forced him to stop the opression in the universe.

Well I don't know where I saw/read this... But as I remember, The Third Doctor's exile on earth was actually supposed to happen during his First Incarnation, so I'm under the impression that he ran away from Gallifrey because he knew that he was about to get exiled. TheTARDIScontroller 04:49, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Who messed?
The entire page has been deleted and replaced with an advert. Please rollback ASAP

81.99.155.6 14:56, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed. It was [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.253.192.145

this user]. Looq 09:07, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Key Life Events
where did they go? Revanvolatrelundar 09:36, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

ive re-added the events from previous edits, they are on all other doctor pages so theres no reason they should be removed again. Revanvolatrelundar 10:43, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Clearing up POV in the article concerning Lungbarrow
The member who keeps reverting the edits concerning Lungbarrow may not be aware of this as they have only be here for about a year, but this wiki works differently from wikipedia. The canonicity of this story in relation to the TV series is questionable line of thought does not hold sway on this wiki, which considers novels, comics and audios to be canon.

Also, the fact that the Doctor uses birth rather than looming is not a contradiction as birth or born merely mean to come into the world and do not need a natural birth at all. Even so, the Other was most likely born, himself, and Mark Platt (who considers his work canon) uses birth for the Doctor often.

Also, like all the NAs, Lungbarrow is quite clearly canon in the 8th Doctor novels (though they expand on the Doctor's origin, and thus the Doctor is the son of Ulysses, who put his biodata into a loom, and the Other. Also the use of the looms is referenced in the 8th Doctor stories, and the looms, and biodata in general, play a part in the Faction Paradox arch.

But the main thing is that one person, or a clique, is forcing his own opinion onto others. Many count Lungbarrow to be canon, and it is never fully contradicted at all, and the NAs in general. They were officially licensed by the BBC as canonical continue ons of the series, and were made by people who either worked on the show (Mark Platt and Co.) and those who actually cared for it. Infact Virgin only bought the writers because Peter Darvill-Evans and Branson loved the show and wished to continue it, something the BBC have never done, as they canceled it in the first place, and bought the writes back after it was proven to be a good marketing strategy. If it wasn't for the NAs we probably wouldn't have had the BBC novels and probably not a TV series as early as we got one. The NAs play an important part in saving the show, along with other spin-off media.

But all that is irrelevant, in a way. What is important is that certain cliques shouldn't tell people what is canon and what is not, especially in an article which opens with What accounts of this period exist are both incomplete and contradictory; no attempt to resolve the conflicts is made here. The Valeyard 11:46, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added it back in just now, and made some minor tweaks to it. The reason it is called into question is that Lungbarrow says that Time Lords were fully formed from the looms. The Sound of Drums completely contradicts this, showing the Master as a child, which is why it is generally considered un-canon. Now, I don't know much about it, but from what I can tell, that's a pretty solid contradiction. Before removing it again, give some other people time to give their input. The Thirteenth Doctor 14:47, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with The Valeyard.
 * Both the novels and the TV stories are equal in canon, just because something contradicts it doesn't make it any less canon. Please also note the Tardis:Manual of Style. --Tangerineduel 14:59, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. I've edited it to reflect that. It was also put into two different paragraphs and basically repeated the same thing twice, so I've combined it into one. --The Thirteenth Doctor 15:14, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

It is much better now, although I must say that Lungbarrow was not altogether clear on whether they came out of the looms as full adults, young adults, or even older children (8-12 - which I believe, though this may well just be a retcon on my part), they just do not have a really life as a baby. Also the Master being a child doesn't contradict for some of the reasons I've stated and that Oakdown, the Master's house, was possible a new blood house and if Lungbarrow, an old blood house, produces adults from the looms, it may well mean that the new blood houses do not.

And the mention of a father is not a contradiction either as the Eight Doctor adventures, which feature looms and implies that Lungbarrow is canon, also mentions the Doctor's father, who gave his biodata to the non-Other part of the Doctor (The Infinity Doctors' and 'Gallifrey Chronicles'). It is likely that the Doctor even summered with his father, though he probably lived with his cousins most of the time; and the fact that the houses are similar to boarding schools fit with this.

And in the end, Lungbarrow and Cold Fusion give the best explanation for the Cartmel era references and even the Morbius Doctors (who cannot be Morbius in anyway, or his cycle on the screen would have had to start again from the current/last incarnation of Morbius). They also stop the Doctor from being a simply human with magical powers and a slightly different anatomy, and thus it makes more sense as Gallifreyans are not human and may not be descended from apes but a reptile-like species. The Valeyard 12:26, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Please observe our picture policies
I don't know what it is about this page in particular, but people keep wanting to put pictures here that do not clearly follow our image use policy and/or the image section of our manual of style.

Which is to say, very simply, pictures on in-universe articles like this one must be screenshots or ones drawn from illustrations or comics.

Publicity stills, amateur photos or colourised pictures are definitely not allowed. I have again today removed a publicity still from the infobox and replaced it with a screenshot. I don't care if people want to change it later, but it can only be changed for another screenshot or a telesnap taken by John Cura.

Please follow this rule.

Peter Purves as the First Doctor
Big Finish, in the past, has never gone in for other actors playing, or at least being credited as playing, past Doctors. You don't see Wendy Padbury credited as the Second Doctor in Tales from the Vault, for example. However there appears to be a change with regards to the recent Companion Chronicles series featuring Peter Purves and Philip Olivier, with Purves actually being acknowledged as portraying (not just reading) the First Doctor. An article in Doctor Who Insider #8 does this. Also, the Companion Chronicles themselves have segued into straightforward audio dramas of late as more and more "two-handers" and those with even larger casts are being produced. Therefore, I think it's justified to now include Peter Purves alongside Hurndall. 68.146.80.110 16:26, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

It is still Steven telling the story, Purves is not portraying the Doctor. 118.210.62.220talk to me 11:07, December 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Steven might be getting better at impersonating the Doctor in his retellings, but it still is Steven talking. Purves is portraying Steven impersonating the Doctor, not the Doctor himself.  Tardis1963   talk  11:59, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Picky picky picky
This page appears to be very biased against the books of Doctor Who. It references sources with the phrase "One account..." starting it off for no reason. I noticed it did such with a statement about the group he was in in collage, despite the fact that no source suggests that he WASN'T in such group. I don't think it's enough to add the cleanup template,but it does need to wb remedied. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:35, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're wrong. It's not a matter of being biased against the books.  It's a matter of marking those things which are noted in one book, but contradicted or completely unremarked elsewhere.  We use the phraseology "according to one sourse" or "one account claimed" to indicate a truth: this statement has factually been mentioned by only one source. This is important, because it lets readers know that the statement may not have widespread applicability across several stories.  Its usage is not limited to statements derived from books, and indeed can be used to highlight contradictions that are inherent in the televised stories, as well.


 * Please do not edit such statements, unless you can prove that the statement does not come from just one source. 16:43: Wed 29 Feb 2012


 * I think you Mis-understand what I meant. It makes sense to me to use the "one account" statement when contradiction exsists, but when it dosen't, there is no use on the term. At one point, hits article used the opening to describe that the Doctor belonged to the house of the Lungbarrow, without showing suggestion that this has any contradiction. It would be like if I were to post this on the page,


 * According to one account, the Doctor and the Master were in a band of Gallifrey. (PDA: Deadly Reunion)


 * In such's case, I provided no evidence that the Master and the Doctor WERE NOT in band on Gallifrey from another story, so there is no point in my "According to one account" interjection. This was my argument above. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 20:27, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, didn't misunderstand you. There's nothing factually inaccurate about the statement you've given.  You're inferring something the phrase doesn't actually imply.  I think you believe it means something negative.  It doesn't.  It means that the fact which follows it occurs in only one narrative.  That's a neutral statement.  The point of the phrase is to alert the reader that the statement appears in only one place.  There's nothing wrong with that construction. How else are you going to indicate that sentiment?  Just making a statement and ending it with a citation doesn't mean that the statement was only given in that one source. For instance,


 * The Doctor had stolen a TARDIS. (DW: The Big Bang)


 * does not mean that the only place you will find that information is The Big Bang. The only real way to say "it only happened in this one story" is to, well, come out and say it. But just because you say "according to one account", that doesn't mean it's invalid.  It just means it's obscure.  For instance, there's a bit at the beginning of the Susan Campbell article from Roses, which explains that Susan's real Gallifreyan name is "Rose".  I absolutely adore that fact. It's not contradicted anywhere. I think it's rock solid true. But I still put an "according to one source" construction around it, because it comes from the decidedly obscure source of a Brief Encounter.


 * And this is a usage I often employ: info that is rather far away from anything televised can usefully take the "according to" treatment, under the assumption that most readers will never have encountered the fact. By using the "according to" phraseology, readers will then understand why they haven't heard it, either.  It's not at all bias against the novels, as you've alleged.  Rather, it's helping the average reader of the site not feel like an idiot for not having read Roses or something equally obscure.


 * Of course, it's most often used when there are multiple accounts of the same fact, but it doesn't have to be. If I say:
 * According to Sarah Jane Smith, the sonic lipstick came from the Doctor.
 * that doesn't mean she's lying. I'm just giving a specific source for the information that helps the reader tie down that fact.  If you read into that a possibility of deception or ignorance — that is, if you believe that statement means that SJS is stupid for believing that — that's kinda your own problem.  Just pointing out the source of information doesn't have any implications for the veracity of the info.  14:38: Sun 04 Mar 2012