Talk:William Hartnell

Hartnell's admiration of Paul Robeson
I am not trying to include Hartnell's Desert Island Discs mention of Paul Robeson as evidence that he couldn't have been a bigot. I was simply trying to strike a balance between how Nicholas Courtney and Anneke Wills said Hartnell made racist or anti-jewish comments, but we know that Hartnell adored several members of the cast and writers who were Jewish or Asian. I am not implying that the fact that he along so well with or loved people of backgrounds he supposedly held negative views towards, put the claims into a certain amount of question. More at the very least, it indicates shows he was willing to put his prejudices aside and work with some people. Also, you can be racist back then, and still love some people you were bigoted against (according to a transcript of DID, Hartnell allegedly said "Good singers those darkies"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.227.38 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Alleged racism
Allegations of anti-Semitism and racism came from co stars that worked with Hartnell like Nicholas Courtney and Anneke Wills - they're not smears. Nobody's saying he was a bad person, or definitely a racist, or anything like that - I have a great deal admiration for Hartnell, but it still just isn't right for the Wikipedia article to delete information this way. Besides, we have allowed controversy and accusations of racism surrounding other beloved celebrities on here, as well as their defenders, such as Wayne, Disney, Trump and Churchill. Even if the Hartnell allegations are considered not noteworthy enough, we should still take into consideration the first hand sources surrounding them and debate on whether they are notable enough. If they are not allowed, I understand it, but the first hand sources at least need some looking at. 79.69.227.38 (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The most concrete evidence of such views actually comes from his own granddaughter, Jessica Carney, who wrote the biography Who's There? The Life and Career of William Hartnell, and stated that Hartnell did express concerns about "foreigners", but that "all those loudly expressed opinions were contradicted by his behaviour on a personal level. [...] if he liked someone, they weren't a foreigner, they were a friend." Carney is an excellent source, and I see no problems with that cited in these few lines. 79.69.227.38 (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The biography is not an WP:independent source but it still might be considered reliable as long as there was no reason to thing the author had any "negative bias" to the subject. Sometimes family members DO have such negative biases.  It would be best if other WP:Reliable sources discussed that portion of the book in a way that made it clear that the allegations are likely accurate.  Of course, repeated direct mentions of the allegations by independent, reliable sources without any reliable sources questioning them would also be sufficient, even if there had been no biography mentioning it.  Now, that said, there is still the issue of "is it encyclopedic" and "would adding it here be "WP:Undue weight"?  That is an editorial decision we can make once it's clear that it's been mentioned in reliable sources.
 * Given that he lived in the early and mid 20th century and racism was not uncommon back then, the questions for me are:
 * What do reliable sources say, particularly reliable, independent sources? Are there rebuttals?
 * As a whole, how much prominence do post-racist-era reliable sources that cover his life and career in general give to this, as a percentage. I would not count "topic specific" things like books about "The First Doctor" or things written before Britain and the world became very sensitive to racism by public figures in the "percentage calculation," as they likely would not cover the topic at all, dragging down the average "prominence."
 * If you or other editors have specific reliable sources, please list them here. As for the biography, an ISBN number with the page number would be helpful.  Sometimes page numbers change between editions (paperback vs. hardback), which is why the ISBN number is useful.
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have the 2013 edition of "Who's There?", and the stories are talked about on pages 170 - 172, with Carney using various sources. Carney clearly adores her grandfather, and even notes that while she doesn't excuse his supposed behaviour, she does try to make readers understand it more. She even goes to great lengths to show that his attitude towards Max Adrian had probably little to with his alleged bigotry, but instead to do with other more personal reasons, like the fact his aunt died, and was not able to go to to the funeral. Troughton, Pertwee and Tom have all had what some would argue as problematic parts of their life. Doesn’t really impact our enjoyment of their acting though. 79.69.227.38 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Carney had a bit herself to say on the subject here. User_talk:Jessica_Carney 79.69.227.38 (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fantom Films has no article, but it states on its website It has an entire section on Doctor Who and seems to concentrate on biographies of actors. There is no evidence of any editorial oversight or policy related to its publications. I'm not convinced that it has any reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy", so seems to fall short of our criteria for reliable sources. I'd personally like to see a more mainstream source for any negative content in biographies, even of deceased subjects. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fantom Films has no article, but it states on its website It has an entire section on Doctor Who and seems to concentrate on biographies of actors. There is no evidence of any editorial oversight or policy related to its publications. I'm not convinced that it has any reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy", so seems to fall short of our criteria for reliable sources. I'd personally like to see a more mainstream source for any negative content in biographies, even of deceased subjects. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fantom Films has no article, but it states on its website It has an entire section on Doctor Who and seems to concentrate on biographies of actors. There is no evidence of any editorial oversight or policy related to its publications. I'm not convinced that it has any reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy", so seems to fall short of our criteria for reliable sources. I'd personally like to see a more mainstream source for any negative content in biographies, even of deceased subjects. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The stories do surface from time to time and have been the subject of some books with Australian scholar Marcus K. Harmes briefly addressing Wills claim in https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZdyJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&dq=william+hartnell+racist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiuOrm5fznAhWZEMAKHWV9AUkQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=william%20hartnell%20racist&f=false and being addressed and touched upon in the book TARDIS Eruditorum - An Unofficial Critical History of Doctor Who Volume 1.79.69.227.38 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Image?
The infobox image for Will Hartnell does not represent Hartnell as most remember him. I would suggest changing it for a higher resolution image of his doctor. 84.21.151.208 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox image is free from copyright. Unfortunately, any image of Hartnell as the Doctor is not. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 12:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic
I reverted which changed "anti-Semitic" to "antisemitic". My reason, as stated in, was that this is probably an WP:ENGVAR thing, giving Collins as a reference for British English. You have chosen not to follow WP:BRD, but with the untrue claim that you're "not going to edit war this", when that's exactly what you've just done. I've checked the following reliable sources of usage of "antisemitic" for the meaning used in this article: Please follow your resolve to not edit-war and reinstate "anti-Semitic", before continuing this discussion. We need to remember that the English language is defined by recorded usage, not prescription. Bazza (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cambridge, which lists both, but reserves "antisemitic" for the meaning used in this article;
 * dictionary.com, which lists "antisemitic" with "anti-Semitic" as an alternative spelling;
 * Collins, which lists "anti-Semitic" with "antisemitic" as an alternative;
 * Merriam-Webster, which lists only "anti-Semitic";
 * Oxford, which lists only "anti-Semitic".