Forum:Temporary forums/Validity debate: Scream of the Shalka

Opening post
Well, this is the first inclusion debate this wiki has had since the old forums fell (which I wasn't around for). I think the fact that this proposal managed to climb to the top of Tardis:Temporary forums anyway demonstrates that, bounded as it is, it reflects an issue where the community feels we need to act, and sooner rather than later.

Scream of the Shalka's continued treatment as an source is damaging to the Wiki. I think that point hardly needs belabouring: the issue of Ninth Doctor 4 (The Tomorrow Windows)'s coexistence with Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka) was cited throughout Tardis:Temporary_forums/Archive/An_update_to_T:VS as a prime example of the sort of issue the proposal sought to fix.

Although the conclusion of that thread set it aside because the provided would-be-Rule-4-by-Proxy source cited in User:Scrooge MacDuck's OP was called into question, I believe that Scream of the Shalka can and should be deemed valid under "Rule 4 by proxy". I also believe that there is a persuasive agreement that it passes the classic form of Rule 4 anyway. I will now go over both of these lines of argument. If my understanding of policy is correct, either of these arguments being deemed correct will be sufficient to validate this story (and its tie-ins such as The Fast of the Stone.

Rule 4 by Proxy argument
As per T:VS:

"One exception to this, named "Rule 4 by proxy", occurs if a later story makes an effort to bring an otherwise invalid story back into the DWU. In these scenarios, the otherwise Rule 4-failing story may be decided to pass Rule 4 in a forum debate. In general, in-story evidence may be used for this purpose simply because finding authorial quotes affirming the "DWU-ness" of the stories that an author happened to reference is impractical. While nice to have, such quotes are not necessary. However, out-of-story evidence can still be considered when it exists."

- T:VS

Even if we discount Jonathan Morris's The Tomorrow Windows as unreliable in this matter, multiple much more solid acknowledgements remain:


 * Multiple BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures (Sometimes Never..., The Deadstone Memorial and The Gallifrey Chronicles) novels endeavoured to prequelise Sream of the Shalka, treating it as a valid possible future for the present-day of the Eighth Doctor, by describing the Master's "echo" in the TARDIS as physically resembling the animated "Android" Master. The last two are particularly noteworthy because they postdate the announcement of Christopher Eccleston's Ninth Doctor (2 April 2004! In DWM 336, Justin Richards explicitly confirmed his intent for the 'Echo' Master to link up to the 'Shalka' Master.


 * Also in The Gallifrey Chronicles, Marnal remarks on the Doctor having "three ninth incarnations". This is a reference to the Curse of Fatal Death Ninth Doctor, the Shalka Doctor, and of course the mainstream Eccleston Ninth Doctor. (Unlike the similar, but more contentious reference in The Tomorow Windows, there is nothing to contradict the idea that Lance Parkin intentionally means to depict three intertwined futures here.)


 * As recently as 2017, a mainline BBC Books release, A Breif History of Time Lords, alluded to the idea of the Master being built an android body by the Doctor after the TV Movie as one of the "rumours" floating around on Gallifrey about what happened to him after the TV Movie.


 * In 2020's Shadow of a Doubt, written by Paul Cornell - the "Shalka" Doctor's original creator! - the "Shalka" Doctor is mentioned alongside two other "non-mainline" Doctor (the wheelchair-using child from the Rose novelisation and the red-haired "Merlin"/"Battlefield" Doctor) and mainline NuWho Doctors up to the Twelfth (extended to the Thirteenth in the sequel webcast, The Shadow in the Mirror). This reference, though minor, is particularly interesting because we have an authorial quote from Cornell: in 2009, he casually referenced Scream of the Shalka as "my Unbound", referencing Doctor Who Unbound, stories which are famously intended to be set in parallel universes, not "completely outside the DWU in any shape or form". This quote was previously irrelevant to validity because it postdated the original story, and therefore, could not be said to represent Cornell's intent at the time of release. But it does comfortably predate The Shadow in the Mirror and demonstrate that whatever his feelings in 2003, the modern Cornell thinks of the story as connected to the NuWho timeline in some sense.

Classic Rule 4 argument
Separately from the above line of argument, I think the classic line of argument that "by the time Scream of the Shalka came out, the BBC had already decreed it wouldn't be the Official Continuation, and therefore Cornell knowingly put it out as something which 'wouldn't count'" is just wrong.

It might seem strange to believe in hindsight, but no one was sure that Russell T Davies' Series 1 would really work out, even after it entered production. We're talking about late 2003 here. For reference, Rose only started shooting in 20 July 2004. Even the casting of Christopher Eccleston hadn't been announced yet — just "Russell T Davies will headline a Doctor Who revival on BBC Wales". Anything could have gone wrong yet, and so it's obvious, without hindsight-bias, why the BBC would avoid putting all its eggs in one basket. It downplayed Shalka, yes, because why would you jinx the BBC Wales show before it even started by confusing the branding? But it didn't cast it out entirely, nor immediately cancel the planned sequels.

As reported by User:JDPManjoume, who's done a lot of research on this subject: at Talk:Scream of the Shalka (webcast): "Episode 1 of the unmade Blood of the Robots was first-drafted in December 2003. Simon Clark and Paul Scoones can both personally attest to this. As can Jon Arnold who covered the topic in The Black Archive No. 10."

- User:JDPManjoume

For context, December 2003 is two months after the RTD announcement, and just as the final parts of Scream of the Shalka itself were released on the BBC website. As JDP points out, "Why would the team on this still be actively working on a further story's script as Shalka went out, if they weren't of the belief that they would be continuing on & that they 'counted'?".

And then there's The Feast of the Stone, a story starring the Shalka Doctor which was released on 3 April 2004 (2004!) on the BBC website. And fascinatingly, it comes with plentiful authorial comments from writers Cavan Scott and Mark Wright. Things start getting good right from the first line:

"So here we are in the company of the undead once more. Just how did we come to write for vampires in the Doctor Who universe yet again?"

- Scott & Wright

That's right — The Feast of the Stone is a frankly extremely rare case of a story which so explicitly passes Rule 4 that it came pre-packaged with an authorial quote explicitly saying it's "in the Doctor Who universe"! Honestly, whatever Shalka's status, and counterintuitive as it would seem, 'I think an argument can be mounted that The Feast of the Stone ought to pass Rule 4 on its own merits'', like all the "Sequels to Invalid Stories" discussed in the thread of that name. (It could then, weirdly enough, be used as an example of Rule 4 By Proxy to validate the original Shalka, hilariously!)'''

But that's not all: Scott and Wright speak effusively about how lucky they are to contribute to the growing "mythos" of the "new Doctor", Richard E Grant. No Ecclestons here; no question of this being a side-step into an alternative or non-canonical universe, an already-cancelled might-have-been.

"More than this, the major pull for writing The Feast of the Stone was to be able to contribute towards the mythos of a brand new incarnation of Doctor Who. The Scream of the Shalka introduced Richard E Grant as the Doctor, a totally different Time Lord to any we had experienced before. (…) This new Doctor is a traveller, much as he always had been, but this Doctor is haunted, running from a new demon eating at his soul."

- Scott & Wright

I think it's clear that the BBC were keeping the options open of shifting gears back to the Richard E Grant animated series if Eccleston fell through. As of Scream of the Shalka, REG's Doctor was on thin ice, but he wasn't out of the game yet. Scream of the Shalka was released as something which would contribute to the ongoing Doctor Who universe. Sure, they knew that it might get contradicted by the TV show later, but that's true of 90% of non-TV works.

So! I hope we can all come to an agreement and iron out any wrinkles. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎  14:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
This is a very well-put together argument and I support it fully. Bongo50  ☎  15:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I also fully support these stories to be validated. To me, their invalidity reeks of canon and arguments built directly to support that instead of being unbiased. But that' irrelevant, as the record can finally be set straight. 15:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the validity of Scream of the Shalka and its related works. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  15:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I likewise support validating Scream of the Shalka and its related works, both under authorial intent at the time and Rule 4 by Proxy. Pluto2 ☎ 15:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I fully support validity of Scream of the Shalka and related works. Danniesen ☎  15:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I support! 👍 WaltK ☎  16:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I also support. Fractal Doctor ☎  16:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I wish I had more to say, after so many years, but I think what is listed above covers it all so well. I support validation for Scream of the Shalka. OS25🤙☎️ 16:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A simple, compelling case. I support. SherlockTheII ☎  17:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I would be wary of using rule 4 by proxy at this juncture. I've found some stuff in the old forums that mean a thread will be coming eventually. (Hopefully when we have real forums. But, y'know.) However, the non R4bp are relatively convincing to me on their own merits, with the caveat that I still wish we could see the old threads, etc etc. Najawin ☎  17:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Im confused, Najawin. Do you support validation or not? Cousin Ettolrhc ☎  17:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I also support validating Scream of the Shalka and related works. Time God Eon ☎  18:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I support validation? I have procedural qualms with not having dissenting voices, and would really like to see the threads where Shalka was previously ruled invalid. But I have resigned myself to my quixotic quest of being the only person who thinks these things matter. Like. I strongly suspect that even with the old threads and people arguing I'd still support validity, iirc what was in those threads. (Same thing with Death Comes to Time. I distinctly remember that validity debate, and if R4bp wasn't used I really doubt the ensuing validity debate would have convinced me that it was invalid, had we brought up the old threads + people argued it was invalid.) But as a procedural matter it rubs me the wrong way. Can we leave it at that? It's a view that's gotten me attacked in previous threads, and I'd prefer to avoid that. Najawin ☎  18:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I support the validity of Shalka and related stories. MrThermomanPreacher ☎


 * I support validating Scream of the Shalka either by Rule 4 or Rule 4 By Proxy. Both arguments are thoroughly convincing --and I take special care to note that we shouldn't even NEED R4BP for this story to be validated, albeit as an alternate reality/universe/timeline/what-have-you. Scream of the Shalka and Rose were both released with the intent of being Doctor Who's continuation from the TV Movie. Which one would win out was up in the air for longer than I believe the BBC would like to admit. Coverage on the Wiki would only improve by having it validated. While I understand that beginning with the R4BP argument to assuage the concerns of those that were skeptical of using The Tomorrow Windows as its basis, I would say in future that any argument for validity where Rule 4 is in question should be structured in a manner like this:
 * (1) This story should be valid under Rule 4 for X, Y, or Z reasons.
 * (2) Even if you believe those reasons are insufficient, it must be valid under Rule 4 by Proxy because of X, Y, or Z reasons.
 * Rule 4 by Proxy is meant to be an exception to a rule. We should only apply it when Rule 4 cannot otherwise be satisfied --that way we don't end up overly expanding Rule 4 by Proxy 'jurisprudence'. All of this is to say, Scream of the Shalka should be valid . NoNotTheMemes ☎  20:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this thread was greenlit, even given its high vote count on Tardis:Temporary forums, since the temporary forums were opened for "essential community instructions" and – as the forum page explicitly points out! – it's hard to argue that an inclusion debate which will affect very few pages is more urgent or significant than other highly-voted proposals like T:IUP reform. That aside, for all the reasons eloquently articulated above, I unconditionally support full validity for Scream of the Shalka and related works. – n8 (☎) 03:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, we've all been waiting for years to finally do this, and Scream of the Shalka was just the ONE story discluded from the previous T:VS debate. So think of this as just a little bonus thread wrapping up that one.


 * Also, and I don't mean to sound bitter, but I'll believe in a "permanent forum" system when it's here... OS25🤙☎️ 06:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * (Yeah, the overview page only warns that inclusion debates "may" be discounted, not that they're absolutely verboten with no exceptions; especially as the Temp Forums have been chugging along for a little while now. The main thing, beyond votes, is that this had a ready OP, and the IUP policy thread still doesn't. You yourself have come out against an attempt by me to obviate the need for an OP on another one of the high-ranking proposals; and, I'll readily apologise again, with every right! But until such proposals are ready to go, there's no harm in getting this done, I thought.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Supporting this validation too, specifically as an outright Rule 4 pass. As I did then on the Talk page, I am under continued belief that the contemporary evidence supports it as such. JDPManjoume ☎  14:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully support under rule 4 however I will also place my support behind rule 4 by proxy should the need arise.Anastasia Cousins ☎  23:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I fully support inclusion and feel that it is absolutely fine for whatever gets voted to the top being what's discussed, within mod discretion. Like OttselSpy, I'll believe a permanent forum will happen when it is live and functional and not a moment before. Schreibenheimer  ☎  11:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion
Alright, alright. We're around 5 days of closure, and over for a week there have been no further comments. A lot has been discussed about Shalka in this wiki's past, and it's been, I'd say, fairly summarized in this very thread's opening post.

User:Cousin Ettolrhc has made a really solid case under the "Classic Rule 4" argument that Shalka has always passed our Valid sources requirements, and for that alone this thread's conclusion should be that Scream of the Shalka and its sequels are now to be treated as valid sources.

However, I think there's some beauty in using our recently-codified "Rule 4 by Proxy" to help us solidify how we're treating these stories: as-of-2023, "the" Ninth Doctor of the Doctor Who universe is, in our collective minds, Christopher Eccleston. But as The Doctor's ninth incarnation illustrates, there's also no doubt that he isn't the only possible successor to Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor, on TV Who itself. Therefore, Richard E Grant's Doctor and companions fall within the realm of "possible futures" (applying alternate timeline, parallel universe or whichever other terminology individual stories may use). OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)