Talk:Fugitive Doctor

Sources

Some references that might come in handy - haven't read through them yet:

• https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jo-martin-first-black-doctor-21373790
• https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/28/doctor-who-jo-martin-becomes-first-bame-actor-to-play-the-doctor

-- Chuq (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Mirror is a very unreliable source and must absolutely be avoided. Same for The Sun. Spectritus (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we move this page back to the mainspace?

There seems like enough sources and information about this topic now to justify moving it back to the mainspace. What do others think? This is Paul (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to Fugitive Doctor, at least. Who decided on that? It is certainly not an official designation of this regeneration. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure. We've referred to her as the Ruth Doctor in our synopsis of "The Timeless Children" so perhaps that's one idea, or Ruth (Doctor Who). This is Paul (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Referring to the Doctor as 'they'?

The article says (of the Doctor) "They travel in time and space in their time capsule". This is absurd use of pronouns! The Doctor is a single person, not a "they". "They" cannot be used in reference to a single person! The Doctor should be referred to by pronouns fitting of his/her gender at the point in question. If the gender is completely unknown at that point and cannot even be vaguely speculated, then "he/she" would be far better, to indicate a single person, or just default to "he", since almost the entire heritage of the character is male. But using "they" is simply bizarre. Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Singular they has been in use for eight CENTURIES, and is of perfectly optimal use to refer to a character who has appeared as either male or female throughout their depictions. Radagast (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The article you linked to is a different kind of "singular they". That's talking about unknown individuals, like you might say "Whoever reads this can draw their own conclusion" or "I'm going to ask a doctor and see what they say.". That kind of language is indeed perfectly fine and has been in use for centuries - but it's strictly for unknown individuals. What this article has done is to refer to a known individual as "they", which just isn't standard English, and looks very confusing, like a plural.

Let's consider transsexuals. Would a Wikipedia biography about a transwoman say "they grew up in New York"? Or "they spent most of their lives living in America"? Isn't it standard practise when discussing transsexuals to use pronouns pertaining to one specific gender - be it the current, preferred, or at-the-time gender? As someone who has changed sex, the Doctor would not seem to be any different, here. Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The doctor (and all time lords) can change sex back and forth, ergo they are a they. And apparently you missed the part about how “they” is used in contemporary times to refer to known individuals without strictly masculine/feminine gender identities (like the doctor, who once again is both male and female in gender identity intermittently) Dronebogus (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Before the First Doctor

I feel like, while it is heavily implied that this Doctor is a pre-Hartnell Doctor, I feel like it isn't outright confirmed, and the wording in the article should be changed to reflect this. Landfish7 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Not the First Non-White performer to play the Doctor

Peter Davidson is a white passing Black Man. As seen in this article with photo album , his father was a Black Guyanan. That would make him Black, or "mixed-race" in cultures that don't follow the one drop rule. TheMist84 (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think including this viewpoint would negatively affect the neutrality of the article by giving the claim undue weight. Landfish7 (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

How is the actor themself stating their background a claim with undue weight? TheMist84 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's due weight if you mention the above in Davison's article. It's undue weight if you put it in this article because you need to cite a reputable source that discusses the above with respect to the topic of this article. That is to say, we need a reputable source to state what you're trying to state rather than some random wikipedia editor stating it (ie, you or I et al.). DonQuixote (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Peter's article states "He was also the first mixed race actor to portray the character." and cites this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Davison#cite_note-16

Would it be apropriate to restate Davison's mixed race status in this article with the same citation? TheMist84 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Unless, the article mentions this character or makes the connection for us, it's original research/interpretation. The purview of wikipedia is to restate what's mentioned in already published materials, so no. DonQuixote (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

In which case, should the line "He was also the first mixed race actor to portray the character." be removed from Davison's page, as the cited article doesn't make that claim? TheMist84 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably. DonQuixote (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Russell t davies

"the Fugitive Doctor is regarded as too contradictory a change in continuity to be considered a retcon. Therefore, it can only be explained through the supernatural, serving as a catalyst for his more supernatural themed second tenure on Doctor Who" what is technically wrong with this explanation. It can't be explained by science can it? Because it can't be manoeuvred with the first Doctor, they both can't be true. It being supernatural makes sense because anything goes. I think the above phrase should be added I'm where it was Blob02 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable secondary source that says anything like that. DonQuixote (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

But if for a second we disregard citations. You agree it can only make sense by the supernatural? Blob02 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. Wikipedia works by summarising already published materials. DonQuixote (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

oooh get you Blob02 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be added i just wanted to talk with a fellow fan. Blob02 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/DoctorWho DonQuixote (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

? Blob02 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is for the discussion of writing an encyclopaedia article. For talking with other fans, Facebook, etc. are appropriate venues. DonQuixote (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fugitive Doctor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 13:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 03:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I will be reviewing this. I am excited to do so! Expect comments by Friday :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Review:

Hey, I am so so sorry for the lateness! I was trying to review it for the past few days but really struggled with the appearances section and kept having to go back to the article, so I am sorry for my delay. I have gone through the whole article and made some minor changes. Here is the review:

Lead - could you please add a sentence or two about Martin's casting and/or how Martin felt that playing the Doctor improved her career?

Appearances:

1.) Can you briefly explain what a Chameleon Arch is?

• The concept of a Chameleon Arch is covered via the hyperlink. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

2.) "with no knowledge of her true nature" - Can you clarify whether the "husband" has no knowledge or the Doctor herself?

3.) Can you briefly say who "Galifreyan Commander Gat" is?

4.) What does "where her previous identity is restored" mean? Does she get her memories back or transfer etc?

5.) "parts with her other self acrimoniously" - Can you please clarify if this is the 13th Doctor?

6.) Can you briefly explain what the Matrix is?

7.) "In that episode, the Thirteenth Doctor has been cast back into her past timestream to her previous visit to the Temple of Atropos, where she last confronted the Ravagers known as Swarm and Azure. The Thirteenth Doctor finds she has no memory of the events, but upon spotting her reflection in a mirrored wall panel sees she is in her Fugitive Doctor incarnation. The Thirteenth Doctor learns that the Fugitive Doctor had led a team of Division operatives, including the Lupari officer Karvanista, to capture the two Ravagers and uses her past self's methods as an inspiration to fix the situation in the present." - Could you add a ref to this for consistency?

8.) Could you please include any information about the character's companions (whether in other media or the main section)? I think this is important to the character due to it being an essential part of the other doctors, and it has the added bonus of bringing the refs in the infobox to the main body of the article :D

• Lee and Karvanista are already discussed in the article body with their roles. I've added clarification for Lee, but there's nowhere to really squeeze Karvanista's mention in given he barely is relevant to her character on-screen. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

9.) "to avoid answering any major questions who her character is." - I think this is missing a word

10.) As a fan of the show but not a super mega-fan, I found this section quite difficult to understand as there were several pieces of terminology that I did not understand. A reader unfamiliar with the show will struggle with this even more. Hence, if you could please go through this section and try to briefly explain, link or clarify any terminology/people/places etc that only fans will know, that would be great and would help readers unfamiliar with the show. I am not saying this as a criticism - I think that when writing for the topics we are passionate and know a lot about, we often forget to clarify things even though we try our hardest to. I am aware that some of it is explained in the lead, which is great, though it is worth noting that some readers may skip the lead too

• • Addressed most of the above, let me know what else I can do here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Creation and naming:

1.) "with the script lining up just right to make her inclusion make sense within the episode" - Could this briefly expanded upon/clarified, particularly the "just right" part?

• Axed just right, but the source offers no further clarification iirc, so not much I can do here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

2.) "The name "Fugitive Doctor", named after her debut episode" - Could you please clarify who names her this initially - is it the fans or the characters?

• The previous sentence clarifies these are fans naming the character, and that this is one of the names they came up with. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

3.) "Though the incarnation does not head up an entire series of her own" - Could you please replace "head up"?

• Changed to lead. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

4.) "to show that "she still exists"." - Could you please clarify whether this is referring to the actress or character?

• Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Casting:

1.) "Martin initially had felt that her becoming the Doctor as a middle-aged black woman would be incredibly unlikely" - Could you please reword if possible?

• What do you mean? I'm not sure what you want me to change here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Characterisation:

1.) Could you please reword "dark incarnation" and "acerbic tongue", especially the second term, as they seem to be terms that different readers will interpret differently? If not, perhaps using quotes (e.g. x referred to the character as having a "acerbic tongue" etc) would be a good idea

2.) Could you please replace "hark back"?

3.) Could you please link "fugitive" at some point in the article to help readers unfamiliar with this term?

• Done all three. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Costume:

1.) "Black combat trousers and boots both hint at a Doctor accustomed to fighting" and "A brightly coloured shirt with a stand collar and frilled cuffs provide a contrast to hint at the Doctor's eccentricity" - These seems like opinions written as fact - could you please reword them, perhaps using quotes like the suggestion above?

• Reworded. A lot of this I missed in my initial rewrite, so it's not more neutrally worded. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

2.) Could you please replace "call back" for clarity?

• Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

3.) "A dark-coloured Scottish tweed waistcoat and frock coat, with the tweed being included to reference Matt Smith's Eleventh Doctor, who was the first Doctor Holman designed for" - Could you please reword this as the sentence seems to have something missing from it?

• Done, woops. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Reception:

1.) I removed the last paragraph and moved it to casting as it fit much better there and was not really reception

2.) "Adi Tantimedh, writing for Bleeding Cool, wrote that the Fugitive Doctor had "proven surprisingly popular among fans", which Tantimedh cited as being a result of her "no-nonsense stillness"." - This needs a ref at the end of this sentence as it is a quote (I was going to do it for you but did not want to disrupt/ruin your pattern of naming sources)

• Again, as per other reviews, I still don't see where in the MOS:QUOTE guidelines it actually says this. Please show me where this is stated since I'm not seeing this there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

3.) "that many previous actors had not been able to before" - I would recommend adding "depict" before "before" or something similar

• Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I hope that my comments do not seem like criticism - they are only my suggestions to help readers and make the article the best it can be. Once these have been addressed, I will do a spotcheck. Please do not hesitate to ping me if you need any help or clarity of course! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• @DaniloDaysofOurLives: Thank you so much again for the review! I've addressed all of the above; let me know on a few points and I'll hit them up once you have more. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hey @Pokelego999 Thank you for your changes - I will go through them in a second. Regarding the MOS Quote bit, I did say in the review for Yeti (Talk:Yeti (Doctor Who)/GA1) where I says this - " In regards to your question, WP:WHYCITE says "Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source" and also MOS:QUOTE, which says, "Per the verifiability policy, direct quotations must be accompanied by an inline citation from a reliable source that supports the material". This is why I was recommending to paraphrase the quote in the lead as I personally am not a fan of quotes in the lead". Regarding "Martin initially had felt that her becoming the Doctor as a middle-aged black woman would be incredibly unlikely", I have just changed it to "As a middle-aged black woman, Martin initially believed that her portraying the Doctor would be incredibly unlikely" just for clarity. I will go through your changes in a bit :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I am still a bit confused by the QUOTE rationale; it doesn't say that they have to be directly next to the quote, just that the quotes are cited to a reliable source as you would any other citation.

  Also, thanks for the Martin change! That reads a lot better. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hey, I have checked the changes and I am happy with them. The other points I think are fine. Regarding the MOS, I have been told by other editors that have used this policy to use refs for each sentence with a quote, so I assume that there interpretation was correct. I have spotchecked Sources #12, #16, #19, #32, #46 and #47. Note: I also checked out Source #3 and #4 and I can't find where it specifically says that these companions are companions of the Fugitive Doctor, so it may be worth double checking those. Also, I highly recommend using #Source 32 to explain why the showrunner did not say where the Fugitive Doctor sits in the timeline as it has some useful information that I was wondering myself and other readers may wonder. However, these are minor issues so I will pass this, well done :D DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 13:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that writers on Doctor Who used location shoots with the returning Judoon species to distract from the Fugitive Doctor's introduction?

• Source: https://gizmodo.com/doctor-whos-fugitive-doctor-was-an-unplanned-last-minu-1845783695

• • ALT1: ... that the Fugitive Doctor was criticized for portraying the first Black incarnation of The Doctor as a criminal? Source: https://archive.junkee.com/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-racism-tokenism-white-feminism/343799
  • ALT2: ... that Doctor Who showrunner Chris Chibnall would not reveal where the Fugitive Doctor belonged in the show's timeline? Source: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-jo-martine-timeline-newsupdate/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sydney_Agudong

Improved to Good Article status by Pokelego999 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Lbal (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC).

• Reviewing this! Been recently dipping my toes back into DW after a little while away, so figure it's a good start. It's my first review, so apologies if I goof anything up.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: On one hand, I lean towards ALT1 as it's less technical/DW knowledge-based than the original hook, but on the other, the original hook is also a bit more positive/"fun," to say the least. Otherwise, not seeing any issues - Earwig didn't pick up anything besides the attributed quotes, the article is extremely well-written (being a new GA), and the original hook + ALT1 are interesting facts to the average reader. Congrats! The Kip ^(contribs) 23:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Lbal: @The Kip: Comment, but as the one who promoted this to GA in the first place I do oppose the usage of ALT1. The Junkee source is the only source that's saying this in the article; using it as a blanket statement as if every critic was saying the same is just inaccurate, and citing only one critic's opinion just isn't really interesting and can show potentially UNDUE weight towards one specific idea. This criticism of the character is valid, but when it's the only source actually saying this, I feel touting it by itself as if it's the only point being said just doesn't really work no matter how you slice it.

A few further hook suggestions to help:

• • ALT3: ... that Jo Martin's Fugitive Doctor was the first time in the history of the science-fiction television series Doctor Who that its main character was portrayed by a black actor? Source: https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/doctor-who-new-doctor-is-canon-like-it-or-not
  • ALT4: ... that the name of the Fugitive Doctor from the science-fiction television series Doctor Who was originally coined by fans before being used in an official capacity within the show? Source: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-jo-martin-fugitive-doctor-newsupdate/
  • ALT5: ... that Fugitive Doctor actress Jo Martin was not told she would be playing the character until the role was offered to her after her audition for science-fiction television series Doctor Who? Source: Cook, Emily (March 2020). "Ruthless". Doctor Who Magazine. No. 549. Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Panini Comics. pp. 14–17.

Can obviously be trimmed or adjusted a little bit but I do believe at least one of these could serve as a replacement to ALT1; I'm similarly a bit iffy on ALT2 since the whole timeline thing kinda hinges on you caring about said timeline in the first place, so hopefully these will be helpful in that regard if you're still iffy on it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• • • I do quite prefer ALT3 and ALT4, I'd be willing to have those replace ALT1 and ALT2.