Talk:The Master/Archive 4

Parking a paragraph
Just putting this snippet here to preserve it will I consider how best to integrate it, or whether to even bother:
 * The Big Finish Productions audio play Master and the television episode The Sound of Drums have the Doctor telling two different and apparently contradictory explanations for how the Master turned evil (although it may be that both the schism and the deal with Death were responsible, with the deal with Death making the Master's madness more powerful). PROSE: The Dark Path suggested that the betrayal of the Time Lords made him go completely evil.

07:07: Tue 20 Nov 2012

Oh, well...
I haven't been on this wiki since an unfortunate turn of events in a discussion. I see that the admin "Czechout" has now edited this article, adding some information that is, quite frankly, false.

In particular, the "Mistaken For Other Time Lords" paragraph. What a mountain of misinformation! Firstly, anyone who ever read the Target novelisations of "Doomsday Weapon"(aka Colony in Space), "Terror of the Autons", or "the War Games" would find fault in his statements. Next, anyone who bothered actually paying attention to the dialogue during the television serials "Terror of the Autons", "Colony In Space", "Frontier in Space", "The Deadly Assassin", "Mark of the Rani", "the Sound of Drums" or "The End of Time" would find his comments strange. To say nothing of the real-world statements of people such as Malcolm Hulke(writer of The War Games), Robert Holmes(writer of Terror of the Autons), Barry Letts(Producer Seasons 7-11) or Russell T. Davies(producer Series 1-4).

But what does all of that count, when we have "Divided Loyalties" which explicitly states that the Master is not the War Chief? Of course, it does no such thing. It merely has two characters called "Koschei"(identified as The Master) and "Magnus"(not identified as anyone), who we are supposed to believe is the War Chief, based on, erm...

However, if Divided Loyalties explicitly decanonised anything that contradicts it, then what about the fact that in "the Nightmare Fair" the Sixth Doctor only finds out the Celestial Toymaker's origins for the first time ever, despite the Fifth Doctor finding them out here? No? Well, of course not, because according to Divided Loyalties, there is no Sixth Doctor. And nothing before "Four To Doomsday" is canon. Just like nothing after "Planet Of Fire" is canon. Why..well

Page 96: Vansell, Ushas and Rallon had already become junior Time Lords and were now in their final semesters, whereas the rest still had two to go before they received the Rassilon Imprimature - the genetic coding that gave them their regenerative powers, the ability to withstand time travel, the telepathic connection to TARDISes, time rings and all the other transtemporal feats of Gallifreyan engineering.

Page 248: Jelpax, on the other hand, was Cardinal Borusa's proudest achievement - the only one of the Deca to stay the course, graduate, and eventually join one of the major recorders, keeping his eyes on matters arising in four or five minor galaxies.

So, there you go, the Doctor must have always looked like Peter Davison. The Master must have always looked like Anthony Ainley. After all, Divided Loyalties explicitly states that to be the case. Any Doctor Who story which has either of hem looking like anyone else can not be a valid source. Any Doctor Who story which refers to the Doctor, Master, Rani or any Deca member other than Jelpax as having a degree can not be a valid source, as Divided Loyalties explicitly states that is not the case. The Time Meddler can not be a valid source,as there the Doctor states he doesn't know The Monk, yet Divided Loyalties explicitly has them at the academy together. mark of the Rani can not be a valid source, as Divided Loyalties explicitly has the Rani voluntarily leaving Gallifrey(despite not graduating, and therefore not getting the necessary Rassilon Imprimature), whereas Mark of the Rani has her being exiled. Actually, Time Meddler and Mark of the Rani can't be valid sources anyway, as they both feature non-Peter Davison Doctors, and Divided Loyalties 'explicitly states that the Doctor can not regenerate. The Dark Path can't be a valid source, as a)it features a Doctor resembling Sylvester Mccoy and b)The Doctor doesn't recognise the name "Koschei", despite Divided Loyalties explicitly stating that Koschei was the name the Master used in the academy, that the Doctor knew well. In fact, anything from "Black orchid" on can't be a valid source, as Divided Loyalties is explicitly set right after "The Visitation", whereas "Black Orchid" claims that it follows on consecutively from The Visitation.

So, the only valid sources then are Four Tom Doomsday(Castrovalva has the Doctor regenerating from a Tom Baker form, but this explicitly can not be a valid source), Kinda, The Visitation, Divided Loyalties, and anything else Gary Russell adds to this canon of valid sources. Everything else is not a valid source. 41.133.1.212talk to me 13:05, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Further to the above, as stated elsewhere, which Czechout either didn't bother to read, or did read but chose to ignore, the FASA Game actually clearly and unambiguously states that the Master and the War Chief are two separate Time Lords. It's there, in book 2 of 3 of the Main Game, and also in the "Legions of Death" module. So, bizarrely, Czechout is claiming that the FASA Game states that the Master is the War Chief, then launching into a rant, when the game states the opposite! In fact, far from being the "origin" of this "mistaken belief held in a few dwindling fan circles", this was the first licensed source that ever suggested the Master is NOT the War Chief! That should put things in perspective. The first licensed product to state the Master isn't the War Chief is attacked for being the "only" livensed product to state the Master IS the war Chief. You can';t make this stuff up.

Czechout also states that "several" books state the Master isn't the War Chief. In fact, the onlybook taking this line is "Divided Loyalties". And there, it's never actually stated explicitly. What IS stated explicitly in Divided Loyalties, however, is that The Doctor can not regenerate. It's funny. By claiming that Divided Loyalties is "proof" the the Master isn't the War Chief, you are also stating "The Doctor can NOT regenerate". 41.133.1.212talk to me 13:35, November 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Forum discussion that IP editor mentions is located at Forum:Magnus, Divided Loyalties and more. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:57, November 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Now hold up, 41, are youmtrying to suggest that DL is not a valid source because it states that the Doctor cannot regenerate, and thus must be set in an alternate universe on purpose? Well... You may have a point. Not much of one, but one. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 16:48, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Whether intentional or not, that remark came across as personally insulting. And I wasn't "trying to suggest" anything. I was stating that the cherry-picking of "facts" is not an effective way to run a wiki. Here, specifically, we have various continuity errors in DL. However, ONE is held up as "definitive proof" of something, while the others are quietly ignored. So, whether or not Divided Loyalties is "intentionally" anything, the fact remains MANY aspects hopelessly contradict established continuity. And it is very strange that one vague, unclear element is treated as Gospel Fact(even though SEVERAL narrative sources state otherwise), while everything else is swept under the carpet, or defended as "just a continuity error". This is not in any way consistent, and the way the article is worded now is just one person pushing their (baseless) point-of-view. 41.133.1.212talk to me 17:10, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

First five words are wrong!
"The Master - originally named Koschei..." Sorry, wrong right out the gate. The Dark Path has The Second Doctor, that's the Second Doctor encountering another Time Lord, named Koschei. He's not sure who "Koschei" is because he has never encountered anyone with the name Koschei before. So, let's see:a) The Doctor and The Master were at the Academy together(and were in fact, best friends for a while). b)Both left Gallifrey. c)Many years later The Doctor meets "Koschei", and does not recognise him as his old friend, because he does not recognise the name "Koschei" at all. Because "Koschei" is a NEW name for this Time Lord as of The Dark Path. He can't possibly have been "originally named Koschei".


 * He's got a point, though some would argue that Divided Loyalties disputes that. How many people take that dream sequence seriously anyway? I say Dark Path has greater accuracy, but that's just me. 86.29.62.78talk to me 18:59, November 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * DL is a source that we have to take seriously, whether we want to or not. 170.185.224.19talk to me 20:05, November 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * @ 41, don't forget to sign your posts, and once again, if you want to change something like this, you have to take it to the forums. It will reach more people there; many people don't bother to look at article talk pages. See Tardis:Changing policy for more details. Shambala108 ☎  20:36, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

^ This is not "changing policy". This is the discussion page for an article. So, we are discussing the article itself, how to improve it. ^^ That is very selective though. The Dark Path is a source that we have to take seriously. By stating that The Master was "originally named Koschei" you are, in no uncertain terms, saying that you don't take The Dark Path seriously as a source. Because there the fact that The Doctor does not know the name "Koschei" is a key plot point. So, by saying, "The Master - originally named Koschei", you are outright saying that you don't consider The Dark Path to be a valid source, and quite likely that The Dark Path is not really "DWU".
 * OK, once again, don't forget to sign your posts. So what exactly are you trying to say? Is your argument that the Master is not Koschei, or are you merely objecting to the word "originally" in the article? I have not read The Dark Path, but I have read its article here, and from what I understand, there is a character named Koschei throughout. The book does call him that, right? Then you have the cover, which features pictures of Patrick Troughton and Roger Delgado. Remember, I haven't read the book, but this seems to imply that the Master is in the story. So, far from not considering the novel to be a valid source, as you state, this wiki is using it as a valid source by equating Koschei and the Master, according to the illustrator's intent, if not the author's. And I do understand your issue with the Second Doctor not recognizing Koschei, but there are hundreds of issues like this throughout the Doctor Who universe that we can argue about. The truth is, writers have always been more concerned about storytelling than continuity. Shambala108 ☎  15:26, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

What gave you the idea that I was saying the Master isn't Koschei? I never said anything to that effect.The point is that the word "originally" is indeed wrong. In The Dark Path, there is a character called "Koschei". The Doctor, in his second(Troughton) incarnation doesn't know anyone named "Koschei". He has never met anyone named "Koschei" before The Dark Path. It is later revealed that "Koschei" is the Time lord we know as The Master, the same Time Lord who the Doctor went to the academy with. The reason the Doctor didn't know this at first is because '''Koschei is a new alias for the Master at the time. From the Doctor's perspective The Master has never used the name Koschei before The Dark Path'''. In fact, for The Master, he hasn't been using it very long either. Despite this being more than 200 years after he left Gallifrey, and him clearly not being in his first incarnation. So, in short, yes it is wrong to say that he was "originally named Koschei". 41.133.1.212talk to me 16:26, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * "What gave you the idea that I was saying the Master isn't Koschei?" The title of your edit, "First five words are wrong!", gave me that idea, which is why I asked for clarification. Thank you for making your point clear. Shambala108 ☎  17:12, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

typeo
There is a horrible typeo in the Telivised cast section which reads "would have also appeared int eh final story of Jon Pertwee's tenure, had not his death intervened" The "int eh" instead of "in the" is a bad typeo which I would like to see fixed, I would do it myself except for this article being locked, so I hope it is fixed soon, thank you.Holyguyver ☎  07:24, November 26, 2012 (UTC)