text:
Talk:The Five Doctors

Credit for Terry Nation?
Why does Douglas Adams get a writer's credit here for Shada, but Terry Nation doesn't get one for the excerpt from Flashpoint used at the beginning? Angmering 16:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't added it yet :P Tim! (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * True! But I thought I'd ask in case there was a specific reason why it had been decided this was the case. As it's probably just an oversight I shall add it now. :-) Angmering 19:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Flavia
Flavia's history (and the history of Gallifrey's Presidency) after this story is complicated and convoluted, and probably doesn't need to be detailed in this article. Short version: in Happy Endings by Paul Cornell, Flavia was found drunk in charge of the Sash of Rassilon and removed from office; Romana became President. However, The Eight Doctors ignores this (as it ignores most of the developments of the NAs) and has Flavia in charge again. And The Apocalypse Element has Romana's presidency interrupted by a 20-year imprisonment by the Daleks, during which her (male) predecessor served as Acting President. It's a right mess. I found a page full of elaborate theories about how to reconcile the events in Eight Doctors with the NAs and the audios, but I'm not sure it's really possible or even worth the effort. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Time Lords can get drunk, too? With alcohol? And yet they don't sweat? They are 'marvellous, aren't they??!!!!! ;) NP Chilla 21:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * How can you forget the Doctor's reminiscences of boozing it up with Azmael? (Oh, right — you can forget it because it's in The Twin Dilemma, which most people who've seen would give good money to erase from their memories.)  Right, let's leave that out — how can you forget the Doctor's reminiscences of boozing it up with David Lloyd George?  (That's better.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Flavia = Thalia?
Just out of curiousity was Thalia the Chancellor as played by Elspet Gray in Arc of Infinity (which I always thought of as the forerunner for The Five Doctors with the Gallifrey setting, the appearances of both stories of Borusa and the same Castellan as well as beginning the 20th anniversary season) intended to be in The Five Doctors. After all it would seem that Flavia had replaced Thalia as Chancellor not to mentioned their names sounds a bit similar. Was Elspet Gray intended to be in The Five Doctors but couldn't appear due to her unavailability?--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A Dalek story
This story featured a Dalek, and is therefore a Dalek story. It might not have been an army of Daleks, but what defines a "Dalek story"? If you go by what's driving the plot, it isn't really a Cyberman story either. The Dalek menaced the Doctor and Susan - by denying it as a Dalek story, you deny anyone looking at the infobox any chance of discovering this. Hence, I have reverted the last change. Stephenb (Talk) 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You might as well include The Space Museum or their appearances in flashbacks in Logopolis, then. It's counterproductive to have discussions in both places: let's talk about whether it actually even belongs in the template at all before. I would like others to provide their thoughts on this at Template talk:Dalek Stories. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The category Category:Dalek television stories was recently added again. Although there were good arguments on both sides the last time this came around, it seems the eventual consensus was to limit use of that category to stories in which the Daleks play a significant role, not ones like The Five Doctors in which they're incidental. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
What does "The Five Doctors marks the end of a string of linked serials that began with The Leisure Hive." mean?

 * From The Leisure Hive until The Five Doctors, the serials all immediately followed one after another with no apparent "gaps" between the stories. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah, silly me, I was thinking of Leela being after Romana, otherwise I would have realised. Out of curiosity, do you know what is that tells you there's a gap before The Leisure Hive and after The Five Doctors? Is it just a mention of an off-screen adventure?
 * No, it's just that The Leisure Hive begins with the Doctor and Romana on a beach, while the one just prior, The Horns of Nimon ended with them in the TARDIS. So some time has passed, even if it's not much. K-9 is damaged severely in The Leisure Hive, and they're still trying to repair him in the next story, Meglos, so there doesn't seem to be a gap between those two stories. At the end of Meglos, Romana gets the call home from Gallifrey, which the Doctor and her discuss at the start of the next story, State of Decay, which is the start of the E-Space trilogy and so on. Essentially, every story from The Leisure Hive up to The Five Doctors has explicit links back to back. At the end of The King's Demons, the Doctor decides to take his companions to the Eye of Orion, where they are at the start of The Five Doctors. After that is Warriors of the Deep, where it just starts with them in the TARDIS, with no indication as to how long it has been since the end of The Five Doctors, so there's conceivably another gap, even if just a small one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that it has been a year, but I quite recently read this article for the first time, and only just now checked this talk page. How do you eliminate the potential for a gap between Seasons 19 (Time Flight) and 20 (Arc of Infinity)? The Discontinuity Guide authors allowed that as a possible place for much of the time between the Doctor being 750 years old (Pyramids of Mars) and 900 (the Sixth gave this figure more than once), Nyssa herself being an extra-terrestrial of undetermined life expectancy. Furthermore, between The Visitation and The Black Orchid, Tegan's attitude about getting to Heathrow and her new job has changed significantly, as if something has happened for her to understand that no matter how long she stays in the TARDIS, the Doctor can get her to work on time. Nyssa, admittedly, makes a statement indicating that they just caused the Great Fire of London, and since in Mawdryn Undead Tegan has an understanding of the dangers of transmat travel that the other young woman doesn't share (Discontinuity again), I suspect that there is an "untelevised adventure" between those two stories, with Nyssa being left somewhere, and when the Doctor and Tegan return, for the Trakenian no more than a few minutes--if not mere seconds--have passed, while the Aussie and the Time Lord have experienced hours if not days, during which they witnessed a transmat-related tragedy (No, I have no idea if Adric stayed with Nyssa or went in the TARDIS). Ted Watson 19:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC) (Updated--Ted Watson 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC))
 * I'd never heard the interval between Arc of Infinity and Time-Flight being cited as the place for the "big gap", though I believe the Big Finish audio adventures featuring the Fifth Doctor and Nyssa do take place here. The more logical gap is the one between Horns of Nimon and Leisure Hive (or Shada and Leisure Hive, if you want to include the cancelled serial) during which he travels with a fellow Time Lord and a robot dog. Tom Baker does appear noticably older at the start of Leisure Hive, and Lalla Ward also looks more mature, and the Doctor even has a modified look (goodbye colored scarf) - so centuries could have passed. 68.146.41.232 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 * In The Discontinuity Guide, specifically the sidebar article "The Doctor's Age" within the entry for Pyramids of Mars, the Arc/Time-Flight gap is put forth as A possible place for much of the century and a half or so the Doctor ages between Pyramids (750 years old) and his 6th incarnation (900). The authors indicate a preference for your suggestion (and say that the point with Nyssa is the only possible alternative), but render it an impossibility right there with reports of on-air statements made giving Romana's age in her first appearance, The Ribos Operation (140), and in Leisure Hive (150), which does lead directly into Meglos which in turn leads directly into the E-Space Trilogy, her swan song. So only a single decade (more or less) can have passed in her time with the Doctor. Ted Watson 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Canon?
The New Doctor Who Season 2 story 'School Reunion' seems to place the canonicity of this story in some doubt, as in that story it is very explicitly said that Sarah-Jane Smith has not seen the Doctor since the events of 'The Hand of Fear' and not 'The Five Doctors'. The story non-canon would also be helpful in erasing the continuity errors inherent within it (the Third Doctor recognising the Fourth and so on). Worth mentioning in the article or perhaps best held off until RTD and the New Who producers comment explicitly on the issue?--Werthead 23:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It's mentioned in the School Reunion article itself. I think that, given the staggered broadcast schedule of the new series in various countries, it's probably better to avoid spoilers referring from the old series to the new one if possible, but leave the notations for the later story's article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Canonicity's not the issue; it's continuity that might be up for debate. I think the implication is pretty clear in the episode, though. They parted in Hand of Fear, and haven't had any meaningful interaction since. Did the Fifth Doctor and Sarah Jane converse, in this story? I don't recall so, offhand. Were they even introduced? Even if they had some contact, I think the Doctor had other priorities at the time. Hand of Fear was still goodbye, for all practical purposes.--Aderack 10:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Rewatch The Five Doctors when you get a chance. The Fifth doctor and Sarah Jane do meet, albeit breifly, in the Tomb of Rassilon. Sarah shakes hands with Tegan and they, and the Brigadeir, have a conversation about the travails of travelling with The Doctor. The canonicity conundrum set up by School Reunion is one of those things that will be debated among fans forever (unless Russell T Davies addresses it in the new Sarah Jane series). The last time I watched it I was struck by the "I thought you were dead" line of SJ's. There wasn;\'t any event in The Hand of Fear that seemed to fit this reaction of Sarah's. It led me to surmise that there might have been one further unseen adventure where the Fourth Doctor and SJ were reunited in a much more dangerous endeavour. Yes the South Croyden is Aberdeen comes up in this scenario but I cou;d just see the "teeth and curls" Doctor saying "This time I AM dropping you off in SC" and SJ then having to say "He blew it AGAIN! and farther away this tine too". But, of course, this is just my attempt to fit things together and it will be very unsatisfying to most. However, it is more satisfying to me than trying to say that the events of the 20th Anniversary (and wildly anticipated by the fans at the time) special never occurred. I hope you get to rewatch The Five Doctors soon and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Of course, a simpler explanation is that Sarah thought she was having an adventure with the Third Doctor and all his previous incarnations (provided that she didn't know that he was, in fact, the third). DonQuixote 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The best explanation is that Sarah did not realisise that the 5th doctor is a future vertion of her (fourth) doctor. The fourth doctor does not appear, and her first conversation with the third doctor shows she is confused as to why she is with the third Doctor in the first place.  The "i thought you had died" suggests she expected the fourth vertion to come back for her, or expected one of the other vertions she met to come for her after this adventure.

StuartDD 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

At the end, when they are all saying their goodbyes, it is quite clear that SJ doesn't understand that the Fifth Doctor is indeed the same Doctor as the one she saw "change" into "teeth and curls." She says "Nice to meet you" or something to that effect to Fifth, and the Third replies to it, "Nice to meet you, too.". She is surprised by this, and Third says he'll explain later. I don't know if that helps the problem at hand, but I must say that I have no memory of this "thought you had died/were dead" line, which didn't come up here until the fourth posting. Ted Watson 18:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

At the end Rassilon returns everyone to their proper time and place. He also wipes the memories of everyone who does not come from "now". Hence the first three Doctors, the Brigadier, Sarah Jane and Susan would be returned back to their own times and places with no memory of the Five Doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.186 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

VHS releases
An anonymous IP kept putting in that the first VHS release of this episode was edited by two minutes. The source that they provided was an eBay description. I have found no other website for the show or any resouce book (and I have several in my collection) that verifies this. Until a detailed description of what 2 minutes were missing I have removed the note because a) the eBay link no longer works and b) the description did not detail any missing scenes. The 2 min could simply be watching the time tracker on the two versions and noting that release two had two extra minutes that read on the clock. Thus, release two might have had longer leader info and/or BBC ads, which they started to add to tapes and DVD's in the late 90's. If anyone can detail what two minutes were missing than this should be noted on re-entering. MarnetteD | Talk 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bessie
I addeed that Bessie was apparantly destoryed here but appears in Robot which was removed because

"rmv fancruft as this story takes place after Robot this is note a notable fact - Bessie shows up again in Battlefield"

I am aware of the fact that this is after Robot, but it it is the third Doctor driving the car when it is destroyed and Robot is a fourth Doctor story, so if Bessie was destroyed in the third Doctor's time how could it apear in the fourth Doctor episode? Hence the reason I put it is the continuity section - it is an error. StuartDD 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The edit is speculation based on your interpretation of events. Other interpretations include the fact that there is no evidence that Bessie was destroyed permanently, rather, she was disabled and could have been repaired and returned to Earth by the Time Lords or the Doctor.

 * Continuity errors are great stuff for blogs or fansites, but, by their very nature are original research. This is an encyclopedia and edits such as this have to either be put into context and allow for multiple interpretations, or they require citations and sources to justify their inclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

a dud story???
really shouldnt the other doctors know what the proverb means if the 1st doctor works it out? i may have worked it out differently but to most people it does seem right --Dwrules 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Once you get some years on you, you will realize that if you met your younger self and said, "There's some things that you think you understand that you don't," your younger self would reply, "Well, what do you know?" Something like that is what's being played out in the story's conclusion. I realize that this isn't an exact analogy, but it should be close enough.  That and the trick of all the Doctor's fixing the problem at once had been used already in The Three Doctors, so Dicks had one particular Doctor solve it. Proteus71 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In "Day of the Doctor" there was some technobabble about time steams being out of sync, which means that whenever the Doctors meet, they can't remember what happened. So there. -- User J Dalek  00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * did you realise that you were replying to a thread from over seven years ago? At the time, the last story to have been broadcast was "42", and "The Day of the Doctor" was still a long way from even being proposed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I never check [thread] dates. -- User J Dalek  22:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside References
Should it be noted that the Brigadier has an assistent named "Kryten" in this one? A Red Dwarf reference? 207.202.227.125 06:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 * No. How could this possibly be a Red Dwarf ref. This episode was made and aired in 1983. RD did not start airing until 88. The spelling is also totally different. Please reserve fancruft questions like this for non encyclopedic websites.MarnetteD | Talk 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Confidential
Can someone please write a bit about the behind the scenes footage that was shown in the last episode of Doctor Who Confidential? Apparently its never been seen before. 86.140.188.246 08:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance?
The DVD release section states: "The story was the first to be re-edited by Vengeance as an Enhanced Special Edition, and was made available on 25 January 2008."

Can someone please explain what Vengeance is/what this means?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardBerry (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I don't know what it means either. Added a citation needed tag, because I can't find anything about it google. DonQuixote (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The editing comment says "see CIA forum for details". No idea as to what this is either!  Possibly referring to a fan board?  Celestial Intervention Agency...?! Howie  ☎  01:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I am Vengeance. The Enhanced Special Edition is a version of the story that takes the special edition as a master and edits several of the more effective special effects back into the story from the Original Edition. It also adds approximatly five fan made special effects, and finally, edits footage from four different episodes to give Tom Baker a FULL ROLE IN THE STORY! For more information on this edition, please see: http://forum.syc0somatic.com/viewtopic.php?t=366 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.200.220 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well for the time being - as you have no website, and no product to show - I don't think you can state that this has been "made available". Reading your forum post, it actually gives no real information about this release at all. It seems that this info will have to be removed until some actual evidence this exists is shown. Check out WP:SOAP and WP:V for more on why this is currently non-encyclopaedic. It sounds like a very promising project, but until it is available and verifiable, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Howie ☎  18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

25th Anniversary Edition
The article says this was released on March 3, 2008. I've found references to the Region 2 DVD set at Amazon.co.uk, but can't find any listings at any North American vendors. Does anyone know the current plans/release date for a Region 1 version? Skyraider (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Brig as companion
MarnetteD brought up a good point in the last edit. Previous and subsequent serials aside, the production crew clearly meant for the Brig to act as the Second Doctor's companion in this special much like Astrid was in last years Christmas special. Food for thought on that one. DonQuixote (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Just for the record here is the edit summary that I posted (since you will eventually have to search for it) after rewatching the episode on the Dr's 45th birthday

 * "I know the debate over this and agree with it most if the time - but in this episode Borusa clearly says 'I gave you companions to help' referring to all who are on the game board and with a Dr"

 * I think that it is pretty hard to argue with Terrance Dick's script on this one. Unless you want to try and convince someone that Borusa meant to say "I gave you companions to help - except for the Brigadier because fan mag/blog/website/convention arguments state that he isn't. ;-) MarnetteD | Talk 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Levene's refusal
Someone just added a passage detailing John Levene's problem with what was intended to be his one scene as Sgt. Benton. For the record, the source citation which was already there does indeed explicitly support that as well, with no less than a direct quote of Levene, in fact. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

USA premiere edited?
I just encountered this in "Broadcast, VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD releases" (come to think of it, as that section also describes a Betamax release, that title probably out to be changed):

 * There were a few scenes in the BBC broadcast that had not been shown in the US airing [which came first, by two days].

Just what was missing? I find this to be notable, and posted a "clarification" tag. Probably should've put up a cite request one, too. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 * This is a much delayed answer to your question Tbrittreid. There were at least two scenes missing in the initial US showing. One was when the Master finds the burned to a crisp body of one of the Time Lords sent before him into the death zone. The other is when the dying cybermen tries to remove the rope that the 3rd Dr and Sarah are sliding down from around the rock. I have known this for so long that I can't remember the exact source but I am pretty sure that this is mentioned in at least one Dr Who Monthly from 1983 or 84 and reiterated in one of the books by Howe Stammers et al. Sorry I can't be more specific. MarnetteD | Talk 07:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The "missing" scenes I mentioned and that you removed from the article were definitely missing from my 1980s video copy of the story, so presumably that was edited totally differently from the US version... in fact, aside from Tom Baker quoting the names of Cambridge alumni and part of the Dalek chase sequence, I also remember the scene of Richard Hurndall eating pineapple not being there! Dave-ros (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * You have to be careful in that the UK version was edited into a Special Edition for VHS release with additional scenes, such as Richard Hurndall eating a cake and a dying Cyberman trying remove the Third Doctor's rope. You'll have to compare the unedited original transmission version, which was just released last year. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes DonQuixote is right the scenes that you are referring to Dave-ros are part of the special edition VHS released wth the Kings Demons. This morning I have compared my tape from 83 with the original broadcast versions on both the 1990 VHS and the DVD from earlier this year. The two scenes that I mentioned above are not on the US broadcast version but are on the other two. I think that further confusion may ensue from the statement that the 1985 VHS Betamax release was the US version. My investigation shows that this may not be the case. Unfortunately this is all original research on my part and my Dr Who mags and books are in storage so we will have to rely on any Wikipedian who has them to hand. There help will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One further thought comes to mind - especially since the Cambridge alumni sequence is on my original broadcast tape. Remember that Beta tapes could only hold 60 minutes or so if info. Tha could mean that the 1985 release might have been severlly truncated compared to any other version and this might have carried over to the VHS tape. Cheers to all for trying to straighten this out. MarnetteD | Talk 17:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Doctor and Sarah Jane
At the end the third doctor seems to say 'nice meeting you too' to Sarah Jane, but doesn't he already know her, as he seemed to when they first met in this story?

It's in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqKe5vMKZdQ

Thoughts?

80.44.184.146 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah says "it was nice meeting you" to Dr. 5, and (as a joke, since they are really the same person) Dr 3 responds "Thank you Sarah Jane, it was nice meeting you too". Luminifer (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft
What is fancruft? Why is it OK to include on this page "There is no explanation as to the absence of Kamelion from this story", a trivial comment with no bearing of any kind, yet it is not OK to include a sourced comment about a continuity error regarding costuming. An error that the show's author agrees is fairly significant. Is anyone else being bullied by MarnetteD for disobeying them? 71.146.16.112 (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) See WP:FANCRUFT. (ii) See WP:POINT. (iii) The best place for questions like this is at WT:DOCTORWHO, not on several talk pages at once, see WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you've completely ignored the wider point about MarnetteD's behavior and that he/she completely ignores other fancruft as you describe it, but is free to pick on individual editors, issue threats, get into edit wars and yet walk away without so much as an admonishment, let alone a warning. If there is not going to be consistency applied to wiki then it makes the entire project a complete farce. Enjoy your bullying. 71.146.4.82 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't call me a "bully" without evidence of such; see also WP:NPA. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cast in infobox
There have been a number of recent amendments concerning the cast members listed in the infobox. It appears that these should be in the same order as the programme's closing credits, and in the same form. I see no reason to disagree, but I do observe that the versions sold retail (whether VHS or DVD) are not consistent between each other, and therefore at least one of them does not match the programme as broadcast; possibly all are "wrong".

One thing I am certain of: the "Special Edition" Region 2 DVD (BBCDVD 1006, November 1999) does not have the broadcast credits. I deduce this because one of the names listed is Benedict Peissel. Individually, Benedict and Peissel are very uncommon names in the UK, so in combination must be unique. How do I know that that name wasn't in the originals? As it happens, I was at school with somebody of exactly the same name, who now works for the BBC in Birmingham. I left school in June 1983, but The Five Doctors was recorded in March 1983, so I hardly think that Mr. Peissel was involved in the original production of TFD. So, if the person named in the closing credits is the same one that I was at school with (which is highly likely, given the high probability that the name is unique), then his involvement was some years after broadcast, and was most likely in connection with the preparation of the Special Edition. Therefore these credits are not the originals, and so the rest of the credits may also have been amended, and it follows that the particular arrangement of the credits for the actors portraying the Doctor should be regarded as suspect. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Please see the instructions on this Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode which are specific in how to present the cast list in a multi-Doctor story. I usually try to keep the cast list as it was in the original broadcast - and I still have my fading VHS from Nov 83 :-) - but in this case the guidelines of the DW wikiproject override this. I don't really feel strongly about it one way or the other but if you want it changed you might try starting a conversation on the talk page for the template. MarnetteD | Talk 21:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't mind how it's arranged, but I keep seeing what are (to me at least) pointless changes. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rassilon
While I realize no canonical explanation for Rassilon's later return, I think it would be appropriate to mention that parallel ressurrections have occurred to Time Lords, even Time Lords with no regenerations left. Specifically, the Master was ressurrected by the Time Lords to use in the Time War, and he later recorded a method by which his "Secret Cult of Saxon" was able to ressurrect him. The point is that the present version of the article makes it sound as though there is no precedent or similar situation (to the ressurrection of Rassilon) in canonical Time Lord history, and that is just not true - there are precedents. Are there any objections to including a link to the relevant episodes parenthetically?Mad2Physicist (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there's no precedents in relation to this episode. Eveything you mentioned happened after this aired. DonQuixote (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Continuity
There has been debate over whether the Doctor's reference to The Five Doctors in The Time of the Doctor should be added. I think it should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.104.52 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to demonstrate that it is relevant to a description of this story, and provide a suitable source that states so; you also need to do so in a manner that is not original research. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Five Doctors.jpg

title: Talk:The Five Doctors


text:
Mark Ormrod (athlete)

Mark Ormrod (born 1 December 1982 in Adelaide) is an Australian athlete. He originally played soccer, but quit the sport to start a career in athletics, his special distance being 400 Metres. He attended Adelaide private school Pedare Christian College

He competed in the 2004 Olympics as a part of the Australian team that won the silver medal in the 4 × 400 metres relay. In 2006 the Australian relay team won the gold medal at the Commonwealth Games.

In May 2006, Ormrod moved to the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra, where he trained as a full-time athlete. He went to the 2007 World University Games in Bangkok, Thailand where he was part of the silver medal-winning 4 × 400 m team. He also ran in the 2007 World Championships in Osaka Japan, again in the 4 × 400 m relay.

After returning to Adelaide in October 2007, Ormrod prepared for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games and once again teamed up with John Steffenson to run in the 4 × 400 m relay. After running in the heat where he officially recorded a 45.39 split, he was replaced in the final where the team ultimately finished 6th.

Ormrod rested from the 2008/09 domestic season and the 2009 World Championships in Berlin. He competed on the 2009/2010 Australian domestic scene improving his 100m PB to 10.46 (previously 10.58 in 2005) and his 200m PB to 21.00 (previously 21.02 in 2005). Ormrod retired from athletics after the 2010 Australian championships in Perth.

PB's:
 * 100m - 10.46 (26 March 2010, Perth WA)
 * 200m - 21.00 (17 April 2010, Perth WA)
 * 400m - 45.62 (01/12/2005, Melbourne VIC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mark Ormrod (athlete)


text:
User talk:164.104.1.26

"Viginia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Viginia. Since you had some involvement with the Viginia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:164.104.1.26


text:
Talk:Parallel world

I would sugest that if this topic gets merged anywhere it should be to Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art as parallel universes now redirects to multiverse DV8 2XL 16:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would personally think that Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art and Parallel world should both be merged with multiverse. Hogtree 11:25, 29 Sept 2005 (GMT) I'm moving the article to parallel universe 64.200.124.189 01:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That would make for a very large article. I still think that keeping this topic split between Possible world-for the philosophical concepts; multiverse-for the physical cosmology; and Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art- for the treatment of the topic in fiction is best. The danger of conceptual bleed-through is real in dealing with these ideas and an effort was made in the first two instances to restrict the disusion to the areas at hand. Fictional treatments, unrestricted by the tenants of modal logic or method can engage in flights of fancy that philosophy and science may not. --DV8 2XL 14:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Parallel world


text: User talk:85.157.98.124

title: User talk:85.157.98.124


text:
User talk:BillyCreamCorn

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Blank Verse  ∅  16:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Lowell Lock Monsters
Hey, I noticed you seem to have an interest in Lowell sports. If you're knowledgable on the Lock Monsters, do you think you can come up with a paragraph or two for the history section? Thanks ccwaters 13:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:BillyCreamCorn


text:
User talk:192.91.173.36

September 2013
Hello, I'm January. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Laurie Penny have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! January ( talk ) 15:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Proposed deletion of Andes, New York (disambiguation)

The article Andes, New York (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Per WP:2DABS, direct hatnote best in these circumstances.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm Biblioworm. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Mastodon— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Biblio worm 22:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at St. Louis Rams with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Interstate 565 page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=660812187 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F660812187%7CInterstate 565%5D%5D Ask for help])

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the SunRail page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=660949022 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F660949022%7CSunRail%5D%5D Ask for help])

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, 192.91.173.36. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Lockheed Martin Information Technology, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. TJH2018 talk  22:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

August 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2016
Hello, I'm Eric-Wester. I noticed that in this edit to Keith Cowing, you removed all the content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Eric-Wester (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello, I'm Alex Cohn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Truthdig— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Hello, I'm Tornado chaser. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Doug Nussmeier , but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Albert Heisler concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Albert Heisler, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Albert Heisler, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Albert Heisler

Hello, 192.91.173.36. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Albert Heisler".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm Entranced98. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Croatia at the FIFA World Cup have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.

Entranced98 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2019
Hello, I'm Bennv3771. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wakanda have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2021
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Rich DeLucia have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Your edit here to Rich DeLucia was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://m.facebook.com/DeLuciaBaseball/, https://m.facebook.com/3up3downdeluciabaseball) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Nomination of The Visitor (Applegate novel) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Visitor (Applegate novel), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/The Visitor (Applegate novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:192.91.173.36


text:
File:R Hide in Plain Site.jpg

Summary
R.Hide in Plain Site album cover

title: File:R Hide in Plain Site.jpg


text:
Talk:Northern Sea Route

Comments
I commented out the bit about melting the ice: has anyone seriously proposed this? Can someone provide a source? Gerrit CUTEDH 16:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Volcanism?
What's the deal with volcanism? I can't imagine that underwater volcanoes could be serious factor in melting of the sea ice, except perhaps extremely locally. I see that originally that chapter was named "Climate Change". What gives? --Mikoyan21 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 * the claim of the first opening of the both passages in 125000 years is a wild guess. the source given, is just the independance newspaper. if you look at videos of the arctic ice, you will see, that even in years with a lot of ice as during the 1980s, every summer the ice sheet breaks and those are moving extensively. this makes it extremely unlikely, that both passages were closed for so long. they may have been open in the 1930s or 1940s but without satellite evidence either claim is completely unscientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.163.192 (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

125,000 years
I've tagged as dubious the claim that the two passages haven't been open simultaneously for 125,000 years. The claim does indeed appear to have originated in the Independent and it has been repeated frequently elsewhere. The organisation mentioned in the Indy is the NSIDC. What their website actually claims is that: "The last time that scientists can say confidently that the Arctic was free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian." Clearly there's a huge difference between the Northeast Passage being merely open and the Arctic circle being free of (presumably free-floating) ice. The Independent seems to have assumed that the possibility of circumnavigating the North Pole means that the sea is now ice free, which is wrong. In fact the NSIDC also says " A recent study suggests that 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had substantially less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time." I think it's reasonable to conclude from that that it would in all likelihood have been possible to sail through both passages 5,500 years ago, had the technology existed. Does anybody have a genuine scientific source for this claim? --Lo2u (T • C) 03:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I responded to your dubious tag without realizing that "125,000 years" was the explanation for your tag.

 * If you have good sources among your choices are to add them to the article.

 * So long as the article is only citing The Independent I think it should fairly quote, summarize or paraphrase what The Independent says -- even if you or I are, personally, sure it is incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this really how the dubious tag should be used?
Another contributor added a dubious tag following the statement: "Images from the NASA Aqua satellite revealed that the last ice blockage of the Northern Sea Route in the Laptev Sea had melted by late August 2008, the first time in 125,000 years that both the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route had been open simultaneously"

Their edit summary says: "Adding Dubious tag. See talk - source most likely misinterpreted by newspaper"

But the very first sentence of Disputed statement says: "If a Wikipedia article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article contains inaccurate statement(s)."

My reading of that first sentence of the guideline is that it is to be used when a wikipedia contributor is dubious about what a wikipedia article says. When the wikipedia article is paraphrasing what a WP:RS ssays I believe the use of the dubious tag is not only inappropriate, but could be seen as a form of editorializing, and a lapse from the trifecta WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. Geo Swan (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I would question the strength of the Independent as a WP:RS. I think WP:REDFLAG applies here: "exceptional claims require high-quality sources". Although there are plenty of mass-circulation newspapers that would claim, for example, that global warming isn't happening, such a claim would never be allowed on the strength of a newspaper article. A newspaper might be considered a high-quality source for an article about politics or a biography but not on the question of global warming.
 * What we have here is a claim in a non-specialist, non-peer-reviewed publication that appears to be contradicted by the very source it cites. Mainstream science tells us that Arctic ice cover has been less in the past than today and that 125,000 years ago is the last time there was an ice-free Arctic, rather than the last time the Arctic was "an island". This doesn't constitute a WP:RS for a clearly controversial claim. I also think it would be rather tangential to write something like "according to the Independent... however NSIDC has said...". That would also be a synthesis of published material and would imply the existence of a conflict for which there is no evidence. I don't see the problem with tagging dubious claims in the hope that somebody will provide a more thorough citation. Also, POV and OR don't apply to template messages. If they did, it would be impossible to use some templates: Template:COI could only be added on the basis of original research, for example.
 * One last point: "Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements absent context or without thought. The intent of the NPOV is presenting the dialogue that is apparent in the body of reliable references, not to mechanically include every possible opinion about the subject. We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article. This may include indicating when a given authority may be wrong" (WP:NOTOR) - in other words, if we think the Indy is wrong, we can remove the sentence, unless you think that would harm the neutrality of the article? --Lo2u (T • C) 02:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * After a several hours this evening searching unsuccessfully for a scholarly source, I've decided to remove this claim, at least for the time being. A clarification, along the lines of "according to the Independent" would be inappropriate because the Indy carries no authority on its own except as a source of second hand info. I don't think it's intrinsic to the article either. Newspapers don't have a particularly good reputation for fact-checking when it comes to science stories and this looks like another of those fake hyped cure-for-cancer-type stories. Notice also how the NSIDC's "at least 5,500 years" became "at least 125,000" years when in fact "at most 125,000 years" would have been the accurate way to summarise this. The author has certainly confused two concepts: ice free navigation and an ice free Arctic. The first means it is possible to circumnavigate the North Pole without ice breakers. The second means the ice sheet has retreated so that there is no longer any sea ice. There's no need to keep a suspicious claim simply because it would be original reasearch to say it's suspicious in the text of the article. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The amended version referring to "the first time in recorded history that both the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route had been open simultaneously" is certainly better than before. However, even that is untrue. The Northwest and Northeast Passages were both navigated without assistance from icebreakers in the summer of 2002. Audacious claims like this need the backing of a scholarly source. Personally I don't know when the two passages were open simultaneously and I haven't found much evidence that it is unusual, in geological terms, except in demonstrably inaccurate newspaper articles. Am I missing something? --Lo2u (T • C) 11:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Are you missing something? Yes, I think so.  WP:VER.  The sources say it is the first time in recorded history.  Do you have sources that say that both passages were free of ice in 2002?

 * If so, why didn't you add them?

 * I continue to believe our policies require us to stick strictly to what our sources state.

 * Further, I suggest that "navigated without assistance" is not necessarily the same as "free of ice". Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * 1. I'm not trying to add an unverified sentence claiming that both passages became navigable in 2002. I'm suggesting we remove information that is clearly incorrect from a less reliable source. VER says that all information in the article should be verifiable, not that the only way to deal with an unreliable piece of information is to find a different source that contradicts it and balance it out with the counter-claim. We need to make a decision on this talk page about how reliable the source is. That doesn't mean I have to prove a negative. If a ship was able to sail through the Northeast Passage in 2002 without an icebreaker, it's quite certain the passage wasn't blocked.

 * 2. No, I don't have any sources that say explicitly when both passages first became navigable. None are required because I am not trying to add such information. I am suggesting we remove an assertion that may not be reliable. I have no intention of replacing it with my own speculative piece of original research and I don't really understand why you think I should want to. I just think we need to get rid of something that lowers the quality of the article.

 * 3. Of course the rules require us to stick to what the sources say but, forgive me, your argument seems to be: "Even if it's incorrect, even if it's not well-sourced, even if it defies common sense we still absolutely must include it because WP:VER says we have to include everything unless it has an unreliable source". VER says nothing of the sort (it is about what can be included in an article) but even if it did that would be an absurdly rigid position to take.

 * 4. I don't follow your last point. Are you trying to say that the Northern Sea Route could have been navigated without the assistance of an icebreaker if it had not been open? --Lo2u (T • C) 03:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Just to make clear the problem with your interpretation of Wikipedia policy:

--Lo2u (T • C) 04:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Your suggestion that we "remove information that is clearly incorrect" sounds like a lapse from the trifecta, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. It is not clear to me that it is "clearly incorrect".  I visited the Vancouver Maritime Museum, home to the St Roch, the second vessel to transit the Northwest Passage.  I bought a book about the St Roch's voyage.  That voyage took 28 months.  The ship had several close calls, when it was almost crushed by ice -- generally due to sudden changes in wind and current brought some sudden waves of bus-sized and house-sized "bergy-bits".  Amundsen's first voyage took over three years.  If you base your assertion that the Independent is "clearly incorrect" on the relative lack of ice of recent years you are very deeply mistaken.  The relative lack of ice is a very recent phenomenon.  This is one of the reason why we disallow editorializing -- good faith contributors who are convinced our sources are incorrect correcting articles based on their own personal notions.  You and I shouldn't be arguing about whether the Arctic is "free of ice".  Rather we should be discussing how to fairly and neutrally cover what our sources say.

 * WRT my 4th point. I was simply pointing out that you seemed to be changing the goal posts.  The Independent claimed 2009 was the first year both passages were "free of ice". You said the passages were both navigated unassisted in 2002, as if that is the same as being "free of ice".  It is not.  The St Roch was a relatively small vessel.  About 150 tons IIRC.  Bus-sized and house-sized chunks of ice represented a huge danger to it -- if they were powered by powerful changes in current or wind.  Larsen, the ship's Captain, described starting through some passages, during the Arctic summer, where the central channel was clear of ice, but the bays off the channel were full of ice -- blown there by a change of wind.  It had seemed safe to proceed, until a change in wind brought those dangerous  chunks of icebergs barreling down on them.  Relatively safe transits have been possible in recent years, at the height of the brief Arctic summer.  But you are simply wrong to conflate unassisted passages with being "ice free".

 * WRT to your Steiner example -- User B can make the article say, "according to Steiner the first word written was...". Feel free to amend the article to clarify that this is The Indepent's assertion.  Feel free to find more authoritative sources that contradict the claim.  But removing material because you, personally,  consider it "clearly incorrect" is counter policy.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Please don't accuse me of editorialising. As you are aware, I am not attempting to add any editorial to the article. I have made many thousands of Wikipedia edits over several years and have never done anything but apply the sources. Look at the article. The Indy isn't claiming that the route became viable for commerical shipping for the first time. It is claiming that for the first time in at least 125,000 years the Arctic is no longer joined to a continent. This has nothing to do with icebergs. As I have made clear already, I am well aware of POV, VER and NOR but as I am not trying to add material that is original research, unverifiable or my own point of view these are basically irrelevant. An article without this claim would still fulfill all those guidelines. You still haven't answered my concerns about the reliability of the source: this is repeated in no respectable scientific publication, we know nothing of where specifically the information comes from. The Independent is not a scientific authority.

 * With respect, the information is "clearly incorrect". If the Arctic may have been ice free 5,500 years ago, it is not correct to claim the passages have been blocked by ice for "at least 125,000 years". Do you not see that this is a newspaper article that exaggerates and, in the strict sense, contradicts the established science? Does is not worry you that we are using this as a source for anything? These aren't merely my concerns by the way. Andrew Revkin is an environmentalist whose articles about climate change are nearly always on the gloomy side but look at what he has to say:

 * that’s quite a statement considering two things: first, no one has been routinely monitoring sea ice along both coastlines between then and now, and second, the region was clearly warmer than it is today (in summers) around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago — on both the Siberian and North American sides.And one of the groups focusing most closely on possible Arctic shipping lanes, the National Ice Center operated by the Navy and Commerce Department, says flatly that the satellites are misreading conditions in many spots and that there is too much ice in a critical spot along the Russian coast (highlighted in the smaller image above) to allow anything but ice-hardened ships to get through. In an e-mail message Wednesday, Sean R. Helfrich, a scientist at the ice center, said that ponds of meltwater pooling on sea ice could fool certain satellite-borne instruments into interpreting ice as open water, “suggesting areas that have substantial ice cover as being sea-ice free.” The highlighted area is probably still impassible ice, including large amounts of thick old floes, he said. I sent the note to an array of sea-ice experts, and many, including Mark Serreze at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, concurred.

 * For what it's worth, I accept that in all likelihood the two passages became open (if they did at all) for the first time since records began at some point at the beginning of the 21st century. What I don't accept is that you have provided anything like a reliable source. Where are the scientists who are making this claim? You rewrote the source with your own unverified "since records began" claim but still believe I am the one not paying attention to verifiability. --Lo2u (T • C) 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

German raider Comet in ww2
This recent addition says that the Soviets gave the Germans permission to use the Northern Sea Route to transit to the Pacific Ocean. I had a book on the German commerce raiders. It said that Germans paid the Soviets a handsome fee for the charter of Soviet icebreakers to escort the one that made the passage. IIRC the fee was several million dollars -- a much larger sum in 1940. Geo Swan (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "without icebreakers"
I removed the phrase "without icebreakers", because, although the Reuters reference asserts that, other references contradict it, and some of them contain pictures showing the icebreaker escorting the Beluga vessels. Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

New wording
I've left this for a while now, in the hope that the discussion would develop a little. As I've said before, the Independent article contradicts the scientific consensus that the the Arctic may have been ice free as little as 5,000 years ago. It can't therefore be considered a reliable source. For reasons of space I've decided against listing sources on ice coverage in the Holocene, though I'm happy to do so. There's nothing controversial about that view. If the Daily Telegraph or the Wall Street Journal produced new information that appeared to diminish the effects of global warming, if it were not repeated in a scientific publication, it would certainly be disallowed for reasons of weight or RS. Quite right too. The current wording that takes account of objections while repeating the claim constitutes a synthesis of published material and therefore a form of original research.

I have found the same story repeated in National Geographic. They quote a spokesman from ESA making a far more modest claim: "Data gathered this year revealed that the Northern Sea Route, also known as the Northeast Passage, and the Northwest Passage were both open simultaneously for the first time since satellite measurements began" and I would suggest that as a basis for a new wording. I also think we should mention doubts attributed to a number of bodies including NASA. --Lo2u (T • C) 13:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

News from September 2nd, 2010
I'm not sure how to edit this into the article but I think this is another good addition for the history section: http://www.smh.com.au/world/russia-1-icebergs-0-as-supertanker-takes-short-cut-to-china-20100901-14njs.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosshapira (talk • contribs) 11:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Differences between the Northern Sea Route and the Northeast Passage
This article is combining the Northern Sea Route and the Northeast Passage as if they were the same thing. The NSR is a route defined in Russian legislation and it does not connect to the Atlantic Ocean. It goes from the Kara Sea to the Bering strait by the Pacific Ocean. The NEP and NSR have many characteristics and history in common, but we should be careful to not equate one to the other, as if they were the same exact thing. I think some cleanup and/or corrections are necessary to make the article more clear. (talk) user:Al83tito 01:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming that's true, then I would agree. The source information doesn't seem to reflect that differentiation so you'd need to explicate that. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a good source, with detailed explanations on how the NEP and NSR are different yet similar:
 * There are significant portions of this article, like the history section, that refer to the NEP as a whole, and they would be better placed in the Northeast Passage article.(talk) user:Al83tito 06:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another authoritative source that makes a clear disctinction between the NSR and the NEP is the following one, which was sponsored by the Arctic Council, the main intergovernmental organization on Arctic issues:  This report is freely available on-line.
 * I am going to start moving some content from this NSR article to the NEP one, when the content is about the NEP, like the first part of the history section. More work should be done to clearly distinguish between the two.(talk) user:Al83tito 16:30, 01 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the Northern Sea Route Article into the Northeast Passage article
The history, climatology and economics of the Northern Sea Route and Northeast Passage are greatly interconnected, with a large partial overlap. It is difficult to talk about one without talking about the other. It therefore may be more appropriate to merge the two articles. Note that I first tried to to move some content from the NSR article that was only about the NEP (per talk item just above), but most of the content in the NSR article is too tightly mixed with the NEP, and it is therefore that I am proposing a merger of the two articles. Since the Northern Sea Route is a domestic Russian route, which is subset of the larger and transoceanic Northeast Passage, I propose that the merger be done by moving all contents from the NSR article into the NEP article. (talk) user:Al83tito 17:15, 01 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a mistake to combine the two sections. Instead, they should e clarified. The correct designation for the passage is the Northeast Passage, which is an international passage that begins properly at North Cape Norway and exits at the Bering Straits. The use of the term "Northern Sea Route" has Soviet and Russian baggage. Msloescher (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC) msloescher

There is no "baggage". The Northern Sea Route is a maritime transit route that passes through Russian territorial waters and the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone starting at the eastern side of Novaya Zemlya (whether through the Kara Gates or across the top of Novaya Zemlya) and ending at the Bering Strait. It is true that the "Northeast Passage" is a term that can include both the Northern Sea Route and any other maritime transit route that would pass in totally unrestricted international waters beyond the Russian EEZ.Moryak (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Another approach would be to move into the NEP article those section of the NSR article that talk about the NEP (like most of the history section). At the same time, rather than completely eliminating the NSR article, it could be kept with its current lead section, and some of the subsections that exclusively talk about some aspects of the NSR (maybe like "Ice-free ports") (talk) user:Al83tito 16:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Following what I had commented just above, I have moved over most of the content of the NSR article (virtually of all of it was deeply intertwined with the NEP topic), but without deleting the NSR article, and leaving the lead section there. I have added a "see also template" to better connect to the NEP article, and I have removed the merger template tag. (talk) user:Al83tito 23:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit by Moryak regarding map illustration (NEP vs NSR)
I undid an edit bu Moryak, who had added the following wording to the map description: "I should be noted that the Northern Sea Route is incorrectly depicted as beginning along the Norwegian coast and extending below the Bering Strait.". The quoted claim is erroneous. The Russian legislation does not include the Barents Sea as part of the NSR: It is formally defined in Russian law as extending from the Novaya Zhelaniya straits (at the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, connecting the Barents Sea to the West and the Kara Sea to the East), to Cape Dezhnev by the Bering Strait. A scholarly source for this is the following paper: ''SOLSKI, J., 2013, New developments in Russian regulation of navigation on the Northern sea route. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 2013(1), pp. 90–120''. Furthermore, the map shown is part of AMSA, a publication by the Arctic Council, so by itself it is an authoritative source. The AMSA reference is also included in the list of references of the article. Finally, this text addition by Moryak was made followed by a citation to a source that does not support his claim, but rather the opposite. (talk) user:Al83tito 20:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Northern Sea Route. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611023551/http://www.fni.no/insrop/ to http://www.fni.no/insrop/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816014936/http://www.polarmuseum.sp.ru/Eng/route.htm to http://www.polarmuseum.sp.ru/Eng/route.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Northern Sea Route. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160922223647/http://www.panoramio.com/user/3862907/tags/NE%20passage to https://www.panoramio.com/user/3862907/tags/NE%20passage

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northern Sea Route


text:
Talk:Shepard Smith

Out?
I'm surprised, and concerned, that we are claiming that Smith has come out as gay based on this:

I don't see how his response could reasonably be interpreted as coming out, as opposed to not denying that he's gay. Is this sloppy reporting by The advocate, The Daily Mail and Talking Points Memo, or do they know something that the mainstream media doesn't?, I would be interested in your views since you just added the content. Also taking this to WP:BLPN.- MrX 18:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 * It is being widely reported that he came out today in various traditionally WP:RS sources. However, it could be that the media reporting this got it wrong based on a misinterpretation of the interview--always plausible. Happy to have this content removed as discussion proceeds in the interest of ensuring absolute accuracy with a WP:BLP matter. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mainstream/traditional sources that say he has come out. Would you mind linking to one or two?- MrX 18:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The best RS I've found on this is The Hill, which says "Fox News anchor Shepard Smith revealed he's gay in an interview with the Huffington Post..." Even though I generally consider The Hill highly reliable, this piece seems to suffer from the same issue mentioned below (a specific journalist's interpretation of the HuffPo interview). Safehaven86 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They can report all they want, but with a significant BLP issue such as this, I'd prefer seeing a direct quote from him coming out, and the bit above doesn't meet that qualification, IMO. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see how there is a substantive difference between a source, even a reliable one, saying someone came out, and the individual actually literally saying they are gay. When I added The Advocate source, since it clearly states than Smith "came out" I interpreted it to mean that he literally had come out. But based on the other RS reporting I'm seeing, it seems more likely that some journalists interpreted the fact that he answered some questions about homosexuality to mean that he was asserting he was gay, when in fact he did not state in the interview "I am gay." Therefore, I think the material should be removed. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems prudent at this point.- MrX 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait Even if true, this is hardly stunning news. There is no rush here. Lets wait a day or two and see how it plays out in the press. It's being reported on all kinds of RS sources. So if it's a mistake one would presume a denial of some kind will be forthcoming. If no denial emerges in the next 48 hours, I'd say this is probably safe to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If no denial emerges in the next 48 hours, I'd say this is probably safe to post., you are sh^tting me, right? This wiki is sersiously f ed up, but not that f ed up.--Malerooster (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we do not operate on denials, but affirmations. He needs to make some kind of specific statement rather than us relying on third party assumptions. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am not kidding. Multiple reliable sources are reporting this. Some legitimate concerns have been raised about the original source, but it's not up to us to veto something stated as factual by this many RS sources. I am in favor of waiting a bit to see how this plays out. My gut (which is not always reliable) says that we are likely to get some measure of clarity over the next few days. But if nothing emerges confirming or contradicting the reports within a reasonable period of time then I think we need to at least mention them in the article. Showing some discretion and patience to be as sure as we reasonably can be is laudable. But in the end if that's what the sources say, and there is neither a retraction nor a denial then I don't think we can ignore it. Of course, how it is presented is a matter for discussion. If push comes to shove my preference would be to mention the reports as briefly as possible, with liberal citations, and in a manner that neither endorses nor castes doubt on them. We report what has been said in RS sources and leave our readers to draw their own conclusions. In the meantime I strongly agree with Courcelles' decision to lock the article for a few days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken the rather unusual step of fully protecting the article for 72 hours after the continued insertion of this material. Between here and BLPN I figure we'll have a consensus by then. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the precautions taken here. For all the headlines shouting that he's out, I've yet to see a quote where he says that. It's more implication than anything else. Is he gay? Maybe, maybe not. But we don't deal in maybe and "if no denial emerges...." is a horrible suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 * @Mr: The fuck!? Selective quoting much? The article you linked says in its opening sentence "Shepard Smith came out as gay today". The article's title ("Shepard Smith Answers Question on Roger Ailes by Coming Out") is not ambiguous. The whole freakin' article is about him coming out as gay. Taking the words "The Fox News anchor came out today in response to a question" as a supposedly dubious source for the claim that he came out as gay when at several other points in the article it is specified that what is meant is that he came out about his sexual orientation is ... very questionable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tongue rightly bitten. I missed the bit in the quotation about the closet. It looked like the OP had cherry-picked a portion of the article that appeared to be using "come out" in a more general sense. Yeah, I agree with the protection, and leaving it out until more definite clarification happens. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That said, I'm not sure how much clearer we're going to be able to get than this, short of a reporter asking him "Are you gay?" and him saying "Yes." Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of celebs that come out and don't make it ambiguous. This leaves an implication, but it's that....an implication. There's no giant rush and, if he did actually come out, I'm sure it'll come back up again in less ambiguous terms. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe this. Are people really going to expect him to make an explicit statement before make this inclusive, despite multiple media outlets stating that he has "come out" as being gay? At minimum, it should be quotable that "multiple media outlets have reported that Shepard Smith came out as being gay". Castncoot (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you participated here, you're clearly aware of the ongoing discussion. So why do you keep forcing the information into the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I firmly believe there needs to be an explicit statement before we report it. Otherwise I feel it violates BLP for something of this nature, as it falls into the realm of speculation, and we shouldn't be including speculative statements for such personal things in bio articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is ridiculous that we are going to ignore something stated as fact by numerous reliable sources (and contradicted by none) because the subject has not bothered to formally state that it is true. This would seem to be a violation of WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And I think it's interesting that this big revelation pretty much dropped off the map in a day. No clarification. No follow up showing something explicit or unambiguous. Only a statement that some media outlets have billed as a coming out, but can't really back up. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it much more likely that it dropped off everyone's radar because it was simply stating what was already common knowledge and because this is the year 2016 and with some exceptions, like Russia or Saudi Arabia and here on Wikipedia, most people just don't give a damn about other people's sexual orientation anymore. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we know what Wikipedia says about so called "common knowledge". Apparently some people here give a damn, so much so that they're willing to edit war and ignore BLP just to call him gay. You keep coming back, so unless you are Russian or Saudi, I'm not sure why. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It may seem ridiculous, but BLP is explicit for precisely this situation. Where there is ambiguity we do not rely on speculation absent a clear declaration from the subject. Oh god, remember the Jody Foster arguments? That was even more clear and yet still had issues. Which is why BLP has taken a hard-line approach, it cuts through most of the arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is about as ambiguous as the sun rising in the East. But if we must kowtow to the red tape so be it. All of this only serves to make us look like a bunch of lawyers obsessed with dotting I's and crossing T's. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Far more ambiguity than you care to see. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because he has not come out directly does not mean him possibly being gay can not be mentioned in an article, even a BLP. BLP does not mean we don't publish anything the subject might find objectionable, it just means that we exercise extra care and quickly remove things when there is doubt. In this case, we should simply be accurate. Something like, "While Smith has never directly addressed his sexuality, he has made statements that journalists have interpreted as an acknowledgement of being gay. He has also appeared in the Power 50 list for Out Magazine, a gay publication." Fnordware (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So what that sounds like is "since there are rumors, we're going to put them in the article"? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A lack of an explicit acknowledgement is a violation of BLP. I see no way to read it any other way. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:BLP does it say an explicit acknowledgement by the subject is required? The most relevant guidance is in WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." Sources have said he came out in the interview. Since it wasn't explicit, we can just indicate what the sources are saying. Fnordware (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36? Huntster? I ask again, where in WP:BLP does it say an explicit acknowledgement by the subject is required? Fnordware (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."- MrX 12:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much as above. I'm also of the opinion that it is simply good etiquette and politeness to not speak for someone else, especially when it involves their personal lives. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto Mr. X Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The key difference is that Smith is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." There are multiple third party sources. Is the incident noteworthy or relevant? Different people will have different opinions on that one. I think it could go in, but there's no harm leaving it out, waiting for the issue to reappear again in the future. If it comes up again (and again) it will be harder to ague against including it. Fnordware (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just being a public figure doesn't absolve us from following BLP. The sources take a vague comment and take guesses. Some even say it in the headline, then question if it is actually him coming out in the body of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You guys seem to be deciding not to include this material because it would not be "good etiquette and politeness" or you feel his comment in the interview was "vague." Wikipedia does not keep material out of a BLP for these reasons, it keeps material out when it is poorly sourced, and we use a higher standard for BLPs. In this case there are multiple third-party sources who specifically interpret his comments as coming out. For you to apply your own interpretation is original research. On the other hand, a valid argument for not including the material is that the sources are not very high quality. You have Salon, The Daily Beast, Daily Mail. I don't think those sources are considered as high-quality as an established newspaper. When we get a high-quality source, we'll add it back in. Fnordware (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually we regularly dont include information that is speculative regardless of the source when it comes to certain areas (like sexuality or religion) due to the potential for real world harm. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 * +1 What Wikipedia is not --Neun-x (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but with so many sources it seems incredible not to include this information. I can't add anecdotal information, but I know for a fact that Smith is gay through a friend of mine who had a personal incident with him. This is not public knowledge or something that can be backed-up with evidence so I can't use that. However, the articles from several sources should be more than enough to allow this information on the Wikipedia page. Obviously, we wouldn't want to mislead people with speculation, but by responding to the question about Ailes forcing him to suppress his orientation with a "he was always respectful" can't really be interpreted as a denial that he's gay.Criddic (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP etc. Wikipedia is careful when making assertions concerning sex or religion unless the person self-identifies in a specific group. Collect (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Well should cover self-identification RE his sexuality (the event he is speaking at has been reported in a few places as well, link for convenience). However the recent Gawker addition regarding his living arrangements is not acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And where in the nearly hour long video does he say he's a homosexual? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The bit where he talks about outing himself. I didnt get a timecode. I was actually too interested in watching it. Its an interesting Q&A. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's that interesting, I'm sure you won't mind watching it again to provide the required information. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Jesuswatch it yourself. 36:00: he talks about not being in, his faggitude, the man he's in love with, etc. BTW, the widely accepted term is gay not homosexual. This is not 1950. - MrX 23:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Mr. X, I know you struggle with civility, but do try. Just saying "it's in there" is a crap reference. For you to come in and support the laziness just because you have a personal issue with me is additional incivility. I don't care which "widely accepted" term you use. A gay man is a homosexual. Just as a straight man is a heterosexual and a man who has sex with both genders is bisexual. Get over yourself for a minute. It does sound like he's saying he is gay. I'm sure, being the conscientious Wikipedia you are, that you'll agree that since there matter has been the subject of several discussion, that building a new consensus is probably the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No I don't struggle with civility. I only ask that if you are going to be so involved with this subject, that you actually collaborate with the other editors, and either trust when an experienced editor has told you that a source contains certain facts, or actually do the research yourself. The subject has unambiguously self-identified as gay. It's a noteworthy fact covered in several secondary sources. Please articulate the reason why you think this information should be omitted from the article, when we routinely include such information in other biographies. What makes this one different?- MrX 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When you blow it, starting with "Jesus, watch it yourself", you are being uncivil. (And you didn't "ask" me to do anything.) If the editor is so experienced, he knows that he can't just present half the source. You either do the work or you don't. (and I highly doubt you'd accept a "oh it's somewhere in the hour long video" from me, so I can't see why you'd expect me to accept it either.) That's not me refusing to collaborate, it's simply not accepting a half-assed job. Now, why are you asking me why it should be included when I clearly said "It does sound like he's saying he is gay", then said we should get a new consensus. So why are you pretending like I'm saying it can't go in? All of done was suggest consensus before adding it, since it has been a contentious issue, spanning years and multiple discussions. Sorry if my caution is a foreign concept to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 * USA Today said Smith is gay. Out is the new in, it appears. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why not use this instead of some video? BTW, people all over Ft. Myers knew Smith was gay when he was at WBBH, but there was never RS coverage of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally prefer self-identification (which can be either a primary or secondary source) and my post of the video was not in any way meant to be a 'Here is the only source that must be used!' declaration, but as a rebuttal and additional source to the arguments (some even made by myself) previously made. Its *confirmation* of what is already widely known and commented on in other sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The single sentence does not have Smith making the claim. I still find "sexual orientation" to require both self-identification and a reasonable connection to the notability of the living person. We still have neither.   "Knowing that XXX is gay" is insufficient. Collect (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He has made it very unambiguously clear that he is gay and in love with a man. It was a significant topic in his Meek speech and it was widely reported.. He said "I Didn't Think I Was In". I agree that his sexuality is unrelated to his notability, but it is very noteworthy and merits inclusion in his biography.- MrX 14:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi collect, if you missed the video I linked above - he goes into significant detail during the Q&A. He also talks about it in relation to Roger Ailes which given the issues surrounding him (Ailes) and how he was treated is the interesting bit. If it should be included or not is an editorial decision, but there is now no BLP-protection issue *preventing* it. (My recent removal was not because of the gay issue, but because of the wording and sourcing involving his living arrangements with his alleged 'underling', which was totally inappropriate) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Majored in Journalism?
I know it may not be technically incorrect, but I found it confusing when the article stated "He went on to attend the University of Mississippi, where he majored in journalism, but left two credits away from graduation." Would it not be more clear to say that he studied journalism instead of majored? If I tell somebody I majored in journalism at University X they would assume I have a degree at that university. If I were 75 credits short or only two credits short of a degree, people who heard me say I "majored: would assume I graduated. Does anyone think it would be clearer just to say he studied journalism? Mateck (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Mateck, I applaud you for your interest in ensuring all information is clear and concise. A person can major in a subject in college without having graduated. When information is exchanged, whether in writing or speaking, it is incumbent upon the reader or listener to not make assumptions on the information given, but to ask for clarification when he or she is uncertain. When someone says "I majored in" a particular subject, it means only that the person's education was focused on that subject. It does not imply a degree or certificate was obtained. Happy editing and God bless! MarydaleEd (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Any idea if Smith ever went back to complete his degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.86.68 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Shepard Smith.png

Will edit to improve sources and proper style
Although this article is fairly well written, there are source holes and other areas where it could be improved. I will attempt to search for proper sources for unsourced material so as to keep this article as intact as possible; however, all statements of fact must be verifiable as demanded in Wikipedia standards. I will also ensure this article follows proper Wikipedia style. It is clear by the above conversations that many are passionate about the source of the article. I assure you that I have no interest in this article other than the areas I mentioned above. Your passion serves as a catalyst to me to ensure this article is accurate, that its statements are verifiable and that it adheres to all Wikipedia policies and standards. Happy editing and God bless! MarydaleEd (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shepard Smith