# Talk:The Valeyard

A sweep needs to be done of this article. As much as the information is useful, as it is, it's mostly a synopsis of Trial of a Time Lord when it really needs to be reduced to information relevant to the Valeyard. Some of the information can be moved/merged with the other Trial articles and excised from this so as to leave only items that pertain directly to the subject at hand. Also, as this is a character article and not a story synopsis, it should be in the past tense. I'll do just that later in my day when I get the chance. --khaosworks 14:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok I have changed it to the past tense. I did try to stick to details which directly concern the character of the Valeyard, but some details of the story I found necessary to include so that the whole thing makes sense. There are certainly many aspects of the four serials which I did not include (for example Queen Katya). Tim! (talk) 16:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's all irrelevant, just that I think some of it can be condensed and we can leave it up to the individual serials for more information. I'm not knocking the work you've done - it's all good - just that for a character study it needs to be tighter. --khaosworks 20:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see, in the Doctor who breakout box, a reference to some of the quasi doctors. The Valleyard is a perfect example - we reference the Cushing Doctor, but neither the Watcher nor the Valleyard.Jahenderson 8:47 EST 8 March  06

It's a good point, but I guess ultimately it's also a measure of notability as well as whether they are recognisable as the Doctor - the Watcher being this mysterious figure that only Nyssa said was the Doctor (how does she know?) and the Valeyard only revealed in the end as an evil "potential" incarnation. The others are incontrovertibly (in thet context) the Doctor. That and the fact that the Watcher doesn't really deserve his own article and that by identifying the Valeyard in the breakout box we're spoilering The Ultimate Foe... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
We are a encyclopedia.  We don't worry about 'spoilers'.;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSmith5000100 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm just a little surprised there hasn't been speculation that "John Saxon" in the current season of Doctor Who might not be the Valeyard.  Or, if there is, might it not belong here?  Zahir13 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if there is, it doesn't belong on WP anyway. (And isn't it Harold Saxon?) Peeper 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's pronounced with 3 syllables, as in Valley-ard. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

it depends on which character is saying it too - Baker pronounces it Valyard.Mmm commentaries (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is something the novels seem to avoid covering. Is the Valeyard a renegade future incarnation (as he appears to have originally been planned and seems to be in Eric Saward's unused script for the last Trial episode), an interim projection, a separated off part of the Doctor (as the dialogue about wanting to be free of the Doctor suggests) or even a darker version created by accident (as was planned in early drafts of State of Change)? Timrollpickering 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The novelizations tend to use the original scripts and the Trial of a Time Lord one has the Master say "The Valeyard, Doctor, is your penultimate reincarnation ... Somewhere between your twelfth and thirteenth regeneration"  For people not familiar with the relationship between regeneration and incarnation this can be confusing but simply put each regeneration results in the next incarnation.  Take this sequence of the first four Doctors as an example, 1st incarnation (William Hartnell)->1st regeneration-->2nd incarnation (Patrick Troughton)->2st regeneration->3rd incarnation (Jon Pertwee)->3rd regeneration->4th incarnation (Tom Baker).
The "Twin Dilemma" revealed that Time Lords do have a 13th regeneration but because there is no 14 incarnation using this last regeneration is normally fatal.  By saying the Valeyard is between your twelfth and thirteenth regeneration the Master not only states that the Valeyard is the Doctor's 13th incarnation but that the Doctor will hijack a body just as the Master did (which the Valeyard does at the end of the story.) Again the sequence: 12th incarnation->12th regeneration->13th incarnation (Valeyard)->13th regeneration->Death (normally)/another incarnation if a body can be hijacked--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads-up...in the literature "nth regeneration" usually means an incarnation rather than the process, that is the 5th regeneration means the 6th incarnation rather than the 5th regeneration process shown on screen.  Admittedly, sometimes writers get confused by the terminology; sometimes they say 5th regeneration to mean 5th incarnation.  All in all, it's a little confusing what anyone actually means.  Oh well, nothing that can be done about that other than to question the writers themselves. DonQuixote (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sadly in this case talking to the writer in question is impossible.  Robert Colin Holmes died in May of 1986 while the episode in question was shown December 1986.  Given that Anthony Ainley has also passed away it may be impossible to find out if the difference in the original script line and what was said was a last minute script change or a line flub that the director decided wasn't worth reshooting.  Also writers in the past have also played fast and loose often contradicting themselves (UNIT continuity for example is a total FUBAR or the Time Lord CIA which contrary to the current writer DID interfere with other cultures.)--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The recording scripts presumably still exist and it's possible one of the in-depth studies of this story in variously Doctor Who Magazine, In Vision or the like does cover any significant line changes between the script and what was broadcast (although "somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation" sounds like a deliberate attempt to make it more open ended and indeed in his DWM memoirs John Nathan-Turner explicitly said he asked for a change to avoid wasting a future incarnation on the Valeyard). If Eric Saward's part fourteen script is anything to go by then Holmes was presumably still working on the assumption that the Valeyard was literally the Doctor's future self trying to rewrite his own past and hijack extra lives, but this was changed after Saward's departure. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Aren't we moving into murky territory by referencing what is in a shooting script?  I appreciate the desire to get to the bottom of this but if we are to present the findings of such an investigation on a Wiki page as fact, then we can only go by what is seen on screen, any other reference is conjecture, musings and just plain mis-leading.  It's nice to have this extra info, but if you find something that contradicts the on-screen evidence in the shooting script, the onscreen interpretation will always win out.  The Valeyard, according to on-screen evidence, appears somewhere in the Doctor's 13th incarnation - and I have always taken it to mean that some form of seperation occurs, rather than the Doctor himself changing into the Valeyard.Mmm commentaries (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The onscreen evidence is frankly as clear as mud and numerous different interpretations have been taken by those writing on this, so I don't think any one interpretation can be presented as fact. There are several different interpretations in both published guides and novels. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the statement in the main article that the Valeyard manipulated the evidence to make it appear the Doctor had committed genocide is incorrect. While the Valeyard certainly mainpulated the evidence to make it appear the Doctor was sending Mel into danger or performing sabotage, the total destruction of the Vervoids most certainly was the Doctor's intent. He had already observed that coexistence with the Vervoids was impossible and that hence there was a 'kill or be killed' situation. He did deliberately destroy every Vervoid, as he admitted himself, in order to prevent them reaching Earth. The Doctor, during the trial, pointed out several instances where he saw alterations in the evidence, but made no such comment regarding the destruction of the Vervoids, clearly regretting that it was necessary. The Valeyard simply seized on that to change the charge to genocide. 82.26.65.159 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a strange charge as in "Genesis of the Daleks" the Doctor is given the task of averting the creation of the Daleks which when you get right down to is would be genocide.  This is ignoring his killing of Set the last of the Osirians in "Pyramids of Mars" or the death of Eldrad in "Hand of Fear" (also the last of his race)--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to state in the introduction that he's an incarnation of the Doctor. At the moment it reads as the plot of Trial of a Time Lord, and you have to wade through the plot to find out this info. I'll have ago at changing it. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As the Dreamlord from the series 5 episode Amy's Choice is essentially a adversary formed from the Doctor's own subconscious, I think he is essentially similar enough to enjoy inclusion on the page - at the very least to make sure the two are not confused. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It's the Valeyard. I'm be most suprised, if not disappointed, were it not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.106.174 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 

Thank you for your speculation.  Now if you can provide a reliable source saying the same thing, then it'll be perfect. DonQuixote (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, I do not believe it is the Valeyard, (or at the very least can be proven to be so at the time) - What I do believe is that as a very similar being, it should be addressed under the premise of improving wikipedia and preventing confusion between the two. Obviously if later information comes to light linking the two, that then would take precedence. But up until that point, a neutrally worded statement noting the similarities qualified with the fact that the Valeyard name was not used would seem to stop the matter dead with recourse to continual editing.AlexanderJBateman (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. While I acknowledge that there is an argument to say the Dreamlord is/becomes the Valeyard (I have to admit my money is on it) at the moment that is pure speculation and has no place on wikipedia. However, I also agree that the Dreamlord is similar enough to deserve a mention. Essentially, they are the same concept, both being personifications of the Doctor's evil side, and that similarity should be acknowledged. 
In my opinion, there could possibly ( and I emphasise the word possibly) be a case to suggest the article should very briefly note that the idea they are the same cannot presently be ruled out, but that is hugely debatable. The main thing is whether the Dreamlord should be mentioned as a seperate but similar character, and I would suggest he should.

Well we saw the between-twefth-and-final nearly eight years ago (though we only found out that was it on Xmas day 2013)  Tennant's Doctor had been developing symptoms of megalomania (The Waters Of Mars) and had just come off a run-in with his own people gone corrupt, so maybe the Valeyard comes from during this regeneration - especially if his paymasters are "Last Of ..." Time Lords interfereing in their own society's past. 86.133.86.30 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that says any of the above. DonQuixote (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be made clearer in the article that in 1986, "final" meant "Thirteenth" and that it is only because of retroactive knowlege that the line has taken on a deeper meaning and significance than intended in 1986. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

One simple way would be to hyperlink "twelfth" and "final" to the article on the Tenth Doctor and Eleventh Doctor respectively.Romomusicfan (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)