Talk:William Hartnell/Archive 1

Alcoholism?
I don't recall hearing that Hartnell was actually an alcoholic in the medical sense of being addicted. I know he was known for liking a drink, but can we be sure enough to say either that he was an alcoholic, or that this brought on his arteriosclerosis? I don't think we can unless we have access to his medical records. I would suggest removal of "brought on by years of alcoholism" unless someone can justify its inclusion. User:DavidFarmbrough 17:00 (BST) 2 June 2005
 * I thought that it was pretty well established that his years of heavy-duty boozing are what brought on his AS. PMA 10:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read recently that Arteriosclerosis is quite complex (it's a symptom rather than an illness itself) and only now beginning to be understood. The re-wording is fine, BTW. DavidFarmbrough 16:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Arteriosclerosis again
Having looked at the wiki article on arteriosclerosis there is no mention of alcohol as a cause, so we may need to revise this yet again. It is not possible for us to say what caused this particular person's arteriosclerosis, (although I might speculate that it could have more to do with Hartnell's stress and depression than with his drinking) even if heavy drinking could have been an indirect cause. DavidFarmbrough 12:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Alchohol certainly puts quite a strain on the heart, and frequently makes pre-existing heart conditions worse. I woudn't be surprised if Hartnell's stressful work schedule caused it, and that the drinking worsened it significantly.--Sean|Bla ck 23:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is the current wording "(arteriosclerosis, possibly exacerbated by years of drinking)" acceptable to all? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine with me.--Sean|Bla ck 00:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a helpful re-wording, thanks Josiah. DavidFarmbrough 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Hartnellisms"
Personally I wouldn't have this ridiculous and even vaguely insulting list in the article, but hey-ho. However, I do have a serious challenge - I've read a fair few cast and crew interviews from the show down the years, and I've not once seen a single reference to the terms "Hartnellism" or "Billy-fluff" outside of fandom. But the article claims they were called this by "cast, production team and fans". Any sources, anyone? Angmering 00:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can't say I disagree: We can have the notable fluffs in the serial articles, which would then eliminate the misleading "production team" bit. Thoughts?--Sean|Bla ck 00:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Plenty of actors have messed up lines, this seems slightly out of proportion, and as you say, unsourced. Tim! (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that this section might give undue weight to Hartnell's line fluffs, but I do think that they're notable. I took out the reference to cast and production team; perhaps a note should also be added explaining that the nature of television production at the time made it more likely for line fluffs to be included in the final broadcast than is common today. (I'm not necessarily opposing a move to delete this section entirely, just seeing if it can be improved as another possible course.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be fair for these to be put in a separate article if they're considered notable enough. It is perhaps worth just mentioning the line fluffs in the main Hartnell article as it is fair comment on his later years as an actor, but I agree that it is probably disproportionate, and his last few years as an actor are not representative of his previous forty. DavidFarmbrough 09:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I doubt that an article of "Hartnellisms" would pass a vote for deletion. Perhaps we could just cite a few examples and send the rest to Wikiquote, with a link? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sending the bulk to Wikiquote would be a good idea. There are more quotes available than the ones already listed, but the more quotes listed, the more "insulting" it begins to seem.  Perhaps keep three?  (Esp. "fornicator".)  As to the notion that "plenty of actors have messed up lines", no.  You have only to compare the number of Troughton's fluffs to Hartnell's to see this.  proteus71 16:45, 22 Nov 2005.
 * However a) By Troughton's time there were more recording breaks and more editing of tape and b) Troughton's fluffs may be less noticeable as his style often involved deviation from the scripted lines. Agree with wikiquote idea thoughDavidFarmbrough 10:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support a move to Wikiquote as well.--Sean|Bla ck 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Proteus71 has, rightly, moved the bulk of the "Hartnellisms" to Wikiquote. Good man. But I'd kind of like the "cinders in Spain" and "matron" fluffs both to be included. I understand the reasoning behind keeping the "anti-radiation gloves" and especially the fornicator, but do you think we could have four entries instead of three? What do other folks think are the best to include in the (smaller) list? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI: I'm reading About Time Vol. 1 by Tat Wood and Lawrence Miles, and it frequently refers to "Billy Fluffs". (I hadn't heard that term before it was added to this page, but now we do have a published souce using it.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Was he a B-?
I do not know to what extent it is relevant these days to mention Hartnell's supposed illegitimacy. This is deduced from his birth certificate (a copy of which I have) which shows a gap for the father's name. This is USUALLY an indication of illegitimacy, but not necessarily, and without information as to whether his mother was married we cannot know for certain (Not even the retention of her surname is conclusive). Also, these days illegitimacy is becoming quite common and the former stigma that was attached to it is less than it was at the time. The articles on Michael Caine and Derek Jameson don't mention their subjects' illegitimacies, so I was wondering if we ought to remove it. DavidFarmbrough 12:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless it can be shown from a cited source that being illegitimate somehow affected his life in some significant way, then it should be removed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is implied by Who's There that the stigma of illegitimacy made him invent a different background when talking to journalists, however this could be for a number of reasons, romanticism, vanity, or even self-delusion. I don't think the illegitimacy per se can be seen to have affected him so much as other aspects of his background. DavidFarmbrough 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that illegitimacy isn't as big a deal now as it used to be, but it was still a pretty big deal when Hartnell was a young man. I understand the impulse to remove "out of wedlock", but we should be careful to avoid the appearance of whitewashing.  I don't feel terribly strongly about it, but my inclination is to leave it in, especially since we have a citation for it (which can be reformatted, if anyone wishes to do so).  Wood and Miles may be overly glib, but aren't we supposed to report the facts as they are recorded in secondary sources? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The difficulty is that it's notable... how? "Born out of wedlock" is such an archaic phrase, as well. I am all in favour of putting in facts, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, as they say. Context is key, as I used to tell my history undergrads — ask yourself, "So what?" If one can make an argument for how it is actually significant, hey, let's go for it. If not, it seems rather pointless. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not mad about the phrase "out of wedlock" either, and would support a more neutral wording if anyone comes up with it. ("Illegitimate" has a connotation of inheritance which doesn't seem entirely appropriate either.)  I haven't read Who's There, so can't really speak to the issue of exactly how the circumstances of Hartnell's birth did or didn't affect his life — I suppose I was just assuming that an illegitimate birth in 1908 would affect one's life and attitudes, although I admit that I can't really specify how.  As I said, I don't feel that strongly about it, and if those who have read the biography say it didn't really affect his life that much I suppose there's no need for us to mention it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's true that the term 'illegitimate' has connotations, and there are groups of people who think that the term either shouldn't be used or that someone born illegitimately can be legitimised by a subsequent marriage. DavidFarmbrough 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sylvia Young Theatre School?....
....First opened in 1981. Time travel maybe?
 * No - It was Italia Conti - now corrected with my apologies. DavidFarmbrough 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

I'd like to see more citations and detail, but technically a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Is there a nice, out of costume, picture of Billy that we could use? After all, the current picture is that of the First Doctor, rather than the actor himself. DavidFarmbrough 12:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is his best known role - indeed his entry in the Oxford DNB similarly uses a picture of him as the Doctor on set with two Sensorites. Timrollpickering 02:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-Sergeant.jpg
Image:Carry-On-Sergeant.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Filmography
I would like to include a filmography but am conscious of the fact that this is likely to at least start as a straight copy of information from Who's There or IMDB. Presumably if the information in both sources is identical, there should be no copyright issues, but can someone confirm whether my understanding is correct? I think once the basic filmography data is added, it can be fleshed out. DavidFarmbrough 16:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC) He Was Not An Alcholic I No Cause He Was My Uncles Grandad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.92.131 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Inability to remember lines?
I am not happy with "Inability to remember lines". Hartnell prided himself on his ability to learn and remember lines very quickly in twice weekly rep. The fluffs do not seem to be caused by memory problems, but due to speech difficulties. A classic example is his saying 'spain' instead of 'Space'. Clearly he didn't mis-remember the line, he just mispronounced it. I think we can do better. DavidFarmbrough 12:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * He didn't misremember the line, he just mispronounced it? That's too fine of a distinction.  I've never heard anyone giving George W. Bush that much room to make a bad speech, except perhaps for his advocates who won't disagree with him under  normal circumstances.


 * It was Hartnell's job to remember and deliver the lines; he failed to do that on occasion, far more than Troughton or Pertwee (whose recording schedules best match Hartnell's). How many fluffs did William Russell have?  One?  (I.e., "Cockylikken" vs. "Koquillion".)  How many lines did Kevin Stoney have in The Daleks' Master Plan?  At least as many as Hartnell's, and he had fewer fluffs.  And the reason Stoney was given so many lines was not accidental.  The production team was hoping to reduce Hartnell's delivery problems by reducing his time onscreen.  Once that hope vanished, so did his job.  (Years later, Hartnell would claim he left first.  I expect that's revisionism.)


 * Hartnell may have had a great memory doing twice weekly rep back when he was in his 20's, but he didn't do as well as he should have in 'Doctor Who'. Looking back, the whole thing is fun and cute, but at the time, directors and producers had to be pulling their hair out.  ("Why can't he just say 'flourescent' for goodness sake?!")  If there had been studio time, the fluffs would have been rerecorded.  These were not left in because someone thought, "It's OK that he remembers his lines but can't pronounce them."


 * This reasoning smacks of hagiography to me, which I don't buy. Hartnell was a man who put his trousers on the same way everyone else does.  He was a brilliant actor, but that doesn't mean we should sugar-coat his mistakes.


 * So, to conclude my mini-rant, I don't object to the rewrite, just some of the assumptions behind it.
 * proteus71 15:58, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not hagiography - it's accuracy. I am not making assumptions, but suggesting revision of received wisdom/cliché. DavidFarmbrough 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * From the POV of a dispassionate historian (and I mean that in its best sense), you're right: there is a difference between not remembering lines and having a problem delivering the lines.  From the POV of a serious amateur or professional, it's a meaningless distinction.  It was a case where actor simply couldn't perform to spec at all times.  Hartnell was a professional:  it was his job to say "anti-radiation drugs", and he didn't.  So, to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.


 * The suggestion that Hartnell's speech rather than his memory was an issue is interesting. Is there any verification for this?
 * proteus71 19:03, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * The evidence of it being speech rather than memory that was an issue is in the recordings of his performances. I don't want any speculation I might have to go in the article of course, but he may have had an undocumented or undiagnosed stroke during his time in Doctor Who (he certainly had some afterwards). As a 'fan', I have usually accepted the received wisdon that he had memory problems due to arteriosclerosis in the same way as I accepted that the first four episodes were called 'An Unearthly Child'. It might be time to look again. DavidFarmbrough 12:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea of a previously undocumented stroke is intriguing. I doubt Jessica Carney would release such info, if she had any.  This might be a case for a medical historican to look over the facts and render an opinion.  How we would go about that, I don't know.
 * proteus71 16:25, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

You might not see this as it is so long since you wrote your contribution, but Jessica Carney here - no evidence of a mini stroke - I don't suppose anyone would have known even if he had had one, especially as he went on working - but clearly he was having problems with his lines towards the end. But the discussion about his "fluffs" also seems based on a lack of knowledge about how the programmes were made in those days. I am not defending him, as I believe it was the main reason for him going, but it should be remembered that when the programme started it was recorded almost as live - and there were virtually no edits made ie no mistakes could be corrected in the way that they can now. Someone might do ten takes to get something right these days. As time went on the technology improved and so later Doctors had the benefit of more editing - certainly by Pertwee's time the process was very different from the beginning. Also nowadays there would never be a programme made 48 weeks a year with such a small core cast. He worked week in and week out and most people find their memories aren't as good in their late fifties as they were when they were younger. When I was an actress I came across this a couple of times with actors in their late 50s or 60s. It's not exactly unusual. Although he did work subsequently, I don't think he was as confident with lines from then on. Jessica Carney (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with Wiles and Lloyd
''Some commentators now contend that reports of Hartnell's illness were subsequently exaggerated by Lambert's successors in the role of producer, John Wiles and Innes Lloyd, to justify a desire (ultimately successful) to remove the expensive actor from the series. Others suggest that it was a mutual decision between Hartnell and the production team that he should leave the programme.''

This rather avoids the huges clashes between Wiles & Hartnell over the direction of the series - in crude terms Wiles & Tosh wanted to take the serious in a more adult and darker direction whilst Hartnell, who as the only remaining member of the original team, saw himself as the guardian of what he considered to be the show's core values. Wiles tried to replace Hartnell but was overruled by his superiors (although there's a story, probably apocryphal, that the contract department simply issued Hartnell with a new one) and in frustration with this and other problems on the series that he had little control over (for instance he didn't commission The Daleks' Master Plan and found it a nightmare, whilst his plan for a Cockney speaking companion was vetoed from on high) he resigned. By contrast Lloyd's tenure coincided with a change of superior so he was able to make some of the very changes Wiles had been denied. I've never heard the suggestion that Hartnell's fees were seen as a problem. Does anyone feel confident enough to tackle all this in the article? Timrollpickering 10:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Have only just encountered all this Wikipedia stuff and want to set the story straight about my grandfather and am pleased to see that you clearly understand some of the issues. It is incorrect to suggest that his pay was a stumbling block (my father was his agent). In fact there is memo from Verity Lambert early on commenting that Bill's agent was asking for a reasonable rise whereas other agents were asking for ridiculous increases for their clients. I think it rather unnecessary to quote his pay in a biography like this - his final fee was certainly not an unreasonable sum for someone who had created a major success for the BBC and who had been in the show 3 years.Jessica Carney (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Health issue
Among the many and varied accounts of why he left Doctor Who, I believe there is at least one published account (in either a book or magazine) that claimed he left due to the onset of multiple sclerosis which is a different condition, I believe, than the artereoscelerosis cited in this article. Does anyone else recall this? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's sad how few of the contributors seem to have read my biography of my grandfather, or indeed consider it a hagiography. That was not the opinion of the broadsheet reviews or of those in the industry when it was published - I only remember getting negative press from a Doctor Who fanzine because I did not provide them with any fresh insights into what he thought about the role. Surely that should show how careful I was not include anything that was not verifiable? I interviewed dozens of people who had worked with him and obviously had access to personal documents and records. There were many incorrect "facts" published about him (newspaper articles should never be taken as "fact"), and one of the main reasons I wrote the book was to correct some of them! Multiple sclerosis was one of those many mistakes - we've no idea where it came from.

I don't know if it's appropriate here, but I also want to address some of the other issues in this response and hope to be able to improve the biographical information when I have learnt how to do this. I see one of the sources quoted is the imdb biog which manages to state that I wrote an "autobiography" of him! There are some factual errors which I will correct, but other issues such as when comments are made about his supposed anti-semitism it should be taken into account that he and Carole Ann Ford adored each other - and she was Jewish. It was never an issue on a personal level and should be viewed within the context of the period. Plus he was not an educated man and would have had many prejudices in common with others he grew up with. I really think it is not an important biographical fact and should not be given so much emphasis. There are far more interesting things about him.

The discussion about his "fluffs" also seems based on a lack of knowledge about how the programmes were made in those days. I am not defending him, as towards the end of his time in the show, he was clearly having difficulty with lines and I believe it was the main reason for him going, but it should be remembered that when the programme started it was recorded almost as live - and there were virtually no edits made ie no mistakes could be corrected in the way that they can now. Someone might do ten takes to get something right these days. As time went on the technology improved and so later Doctors had the benefit of more editing. Also nowadays there would never be a programme made 48 weeks a year with such a small core cast. He worked week in and week out and most people find their memories aren't as good in their late fifties as they were when younger.

This is rather a late response to some of the comments on the talk page, but I hope it will be noticed by some.Jessica Carney (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose you could clear up a minor point that nagged me on reading the article? If Hartnell wore a wig to play the Doctor, how come he had (or appeared to have had) a haircut half-way through season 1? Regarding the speech errors, a short extension to clarify the production techniques here would be good, although I beleive it is mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia. Actors pre-empting their lines and having to start them twice, or stumbling over them completely, happens fairly often in the show's early days, and could happen to any actor I'm sure, just today it wouldn't go to broadcast. It's the mispronounciations, such as the cinders floating around in Spain and "stabilise us, matron" (which, having watched The Sensorties, I didn't actually notice) that are an exception to the First Doctor and worthy of note. U-Mos (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your question - yes of course it was a wig - he had short receding hair! I watched him put the wig on in the studio when I visited. If he appeared to have a haircut it must just have been that a dfferent person styled the wig (they need washing and styling as they get sweaty and covered in makeup!) or a decision was made to change it slightly, that's all. As for the mispronounciations, some of them were intentional - he used the malapropisms as a character trait - part of the mad professor idea. I don't understand why people don't see that! I will try to amend the article on him but am not sure how to go about it at the moment and have no wish to be accused of being biased! Jessica Carney (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1983
Would U-Mos stop reverting edits made to William Hartnell when i am clearly correct. --Marker10 (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a valid reason why i should not edit what is right i will still revert it.--Marker10 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I say again, WP:3RR. If you wish to discuss this, please do so here. I feel it is misleading to put the year of 1983 as part of Hartnell's television-ography, as (regardless of whether he was credited for archive footage or not), he was nearly ten years dead and made no new appearance in The Five Doctors. If you revert this edit once again, I will report you for violation of WP:3RR. Thank you. U-Mos (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The point of the matter is he was credited in the The Five Doctors (I've got both editions of the DVD and the oringinal VHS) and he is on the cast list of The Five Doctors page thus he is a cast member for the episode.--Marker10 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that he was credited. And as you will see at The Five Doctors, I have amended his appearance in the infobox accordingly. I am saying it is misleading to include 1983 in this particular place, as it makes it appear that new footage of Hartnell was used in that episode. U-Mos (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Then how about we write beside it Archive Footage. --Marker10 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be preferrable, but nevertheless I don't think this particular appearance is relevant to the section of the article in question. Archive footage of Hartnell is also used in The Next Doctor, The Eleventh Hour... U-Mos (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well their is a difference, in these stories it was only an image but in the Five Doctors it was a moving, acting bit of archive footage. --Marker10 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've locked the article for 24 hours due to the above dispute. The article may be unlocked by any admin if consensus can be reached over the dispute outlined above. Further edit warring once the protection expires will lead to administrative action being taken. I'm sure that none of you want this to happen and that it will not be necessary. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Locked

Listing child in infobox
I see that some users have tried to put Hartnell's daughter's name in the infobox. Other users have reverted it asking for a source. Instead of discussing here per WP:BRD, some have basically edit warred the entry. One note in support, however, for those adding it in is that it is stated and sourced lower down in the article itself. If others would actually read the article, they'd see. I agree that the users putting it in were not correct in that they didn't use edit summaries and didn't use the cite already in the article. They probably didn't think that would matter. However, the infobox person states that only the number of children is to be listed there and names included only if the children are notable (i.e. has a Wikipedia article). So I would agree to adding the number one to the infobox beside children. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. I've amended it as you've suggested. DonQuixote (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

An Adventure in Space and Time
I'm sure that you are all aware that, tonight, there is on BBC America [add: in the US], an historical film about the beginnings of Doctor Who, focusing mainly on William Hartnell: An Adventure in Space and Time. It covers how the show shakily got onto the air, a glimpse into Hartnell's pre-show life, how he shaped the role and handled his fame, and how he was removed from the show. It was written by the Whovian writer, Mark Gatiss. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Those who defend Hartnell from claims of racism
I have tried to point out the numerous people who worked with Hartnell and who have defended him against claims of him being quite the racist. As some have pointed out; in none of the many interviews with Bill Hartnell, does he express any prejudice against anyone. And remember, Carole Ann Ford is Jewish, and she has always spoken of the warm affection between her and Bill. If Bill indeed held certain ingrained prejudices and/or nationalist views, he was no different from most others of his generation...a generation whose only experience of foreigners in most cases was fighting them on the battlefields of World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.50.151 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have altered sourced information to fit your views, without showing your own sources - but instead have left the previous sources in place to give the wholly inaccurate impression that they back up your claims. This goes against the policy on verifiability and the policy on neutrality. You need to source your counter-claims. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Difficult personality
Re: difficult personality. Most of the remarks by his colleagues on the value added portions R1 DVD's currently extant (The Aztecs, The Dalek Invasion of Earth, and The Three Doctors) are fairly laudatory in the nature of "he was a great actor, but I heard that...[insert some second-hand uncomplimentary remark or anecdote]...but then, he was nice enough to me." Ellsworth 23:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Heard that?


 * One cannot confuse actors with their roles. Nevertheless, Hartnell's Doctor wasn't a particularly nice person. In one episode, he was about to kill an alien by smashing his skull with a rock, before being stopped. (Yes, I have seen this.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hartnell's Doctor started out quite abrasive but he mellowed fairly quickly. In addition, it wasn't an alien but a caveman that he appeared to be about to despatch in the episode to which you refer (the third episode of the first story). Cybersub (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hartnell picture change
I'm just wondering why, on William Hartnell's page, the publicity picture of him in real life has been replaced with a publicity image of him as the Doctor. Cybersub (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a quick look at the article's revision history for a quick overview. The picture of Hartnell as the Doctor is on Commons under the Creative Commons license (though potentially incorrectly—there's a discussion on WT:WHO regarding this), whereas the previous image was only fair use. – Rhain  ☔ 08:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Cybersub (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in William Hartnell
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of William Hartnell's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mulkern": From Second Doctor:  From Waris Hussein:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Desert Island
All these facts are great. After all, it's not fair to judge an actor based on third hand accounts of alleged racism, let alone a line about spanking someone's bottom. And we don't need to paint him as a saint to like him on some levels. We all know that even if he liked black singers, he still would have probably had his racist remarks. The point is that he still genuinely respected a black American singer. Enough to mention him in an interview, so that fans would look him up, even.

Also, by knowing his interests we can broaden our own. There isn't much point in being multicultural minded if we don't at least follow the trails left by previous generations. I never heard of Paul Robeson’s name. Now I can look him up, thanks to Hartnell, and thanks to this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.213.142 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Links of Ford, and others.
If we are to remove any controversy surrounding Hartnell, I suggest that we resort to keeping the sources/interviews that describe positive things about him, most notably Carole Ann Ford, who each adored each other. I have removed mention of Hartnell's supposed nationalist views from the interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.247.239 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That just smacks of hagiography - only keeping the positive things about him? How could that possibly be an advisable thing for an unbiased encyclopaedia. I think the article reads very oddly at the moment - no mention of the alleged anti-Semitism or racism but the counter arguments are all there (Incidentally, being a fan of Paul Robeson? What does that prove exactly?). I don't think it makes for a balanced article whatsoever. Humbledaisy (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a retailer of gossip and smears. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-Semitism and racism came from co stars that worked with Hartnell like Nicholas Courtney and Anneke Wills - they're not smears. While it's impossible to determine how much truth there is there, at the moment the section lists only positive things about Hartnell in a way that seems very defensive and selective. Hartnell's admiration of Paul Robeson doesn't strike me as notable enough to be included and seems to be only included with the notion it immediately extinguishes any possibility Hartnell could've been racist, which I must be honest I find an odd notion. There's no mention of Hartnell's alleged bigotry in the article, so a reader might be thinking "Why is there a passage about one, and only one, of Hartnell's desert island disc choices? Why do we have to be told that Hartnell adored Verity Lambert?". 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 be such a protective puff piece in this way. Humbledaisy (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Racism
From much of my reading it seems that the man was quite the racist, and openly so -- which is a disappointment to me, finding his Doctor exceedingly charming in a dickish way, but I digress. Am debating whether that would be worth mentioning, as it seems to have affected casting, relationships with other cast members, etc. due to his refusal to work with minorities..... Mainly thinking aloud. Thoughts? --John Kenneth Fisher 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That Hartnell was racist was my understanding as well, but before we add anything about that to the article we should be damn sure to have solid citations for the claims that he was racist, as well as any claims that he wasn't. I seem to recall lots of quotations along the lines of "I've heard Bill was terribly racist, but he never said anything in front of me..."  Did Hartnell's granddaughter address the issue in the biography she wrote?  (I've never read it.)
 * Insofar as we can provide reliable sources for Hartnell's views and prejudices, I think the matter is encyclopedic, but we shouldn't add anything this inflammatory without proper citations of reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think 'racist' is a helpful word to use here. I can't imagine him going on NF marches and putting petrol through his neighbours' letterboxes, but I can imagine someone of his generation referring to somebody by a racial epithet. We also must be careful of judging someone from the past according to the values of the present. Waris Hussein has said that Hartnell was professional with him and respected him even though there might have been a certain amount of prejudice. DavidFarmbrough 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you David for putting this in context. I find it sad that people go on about it when it WAS the norm then...and when comments are made about his supposed anti-semitism it should be taken into account that he and Carole Ann Ford adored each other - and she was Jewish. She made it clear to me that it was NEVER a problem, and she hated the fact that he was tarred with this brush. I know that he did offend a few people with his comments but it was never an issue on a personal level and must be viewed within the context of the period. He was not an educated man and would have had many prejudices in common with others he grew up with (he didn't have the benefit of a nice middle class upbringing, and by the time he'd come under the influence of Hugh Blaker, I'm sure his opinions were fixed - anyway I don't suppose Blaker's views were any better with his Victorian background).  I really think it isn't a hugely important biographical fact and should not be given so much emphasis. There are far more interesting things about him! It was more a question of him being opinionated and not very diplomatic as a person, I think.  I would prefer references to it to be removed. 86.138.208.60 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What you forget is that especially because he grew up in a time remote to the present he wouldnt of necessarily had the same belief system as today... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.187.57 (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The article makes a big play - quite ridiculously so - of the faint suspicion that he may have been antisemitic. Since both Lambert and Ford were Jewish, and he got on very well with them, this silly insinuation is defamatory. Mentioning this evidence-free suspicion is utterly stupid in what claims to be a serious encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.230.229 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I really do not get this argument that somebody can't have been racist/anti-Semitic/whatever because they worked with a Jewish person and they really got on. Even if they were great friends, having a Jewish friend is not an inoculation against being an anti-Semite. It is no more useful than "Hey, some of my best friends are black!". Having a Jewish friend (or any other friend) does not say anything about whether you have racist or anti-Semitic beliefs. The writer also says that claims of anti-Semitism are 'defamatory'. I don't think so. This silly argument that amounts to little more than "He had Jewish co-workers and they got on OK" is not proof of anything and, as the saying goes, you can't libel the dead.

I would also like to address the thing written a few years ago about whether or not 'racist' is the right word. The writer suggests that, because they couldn't imagine Hartnell marching with the National Front or 'putting petrol through his neighbours' letterboxes', it isn't proper racism. Really? As long as you only called someone by a racist name, but didn't attempt to set fire to their home, you're not really a racist? That's just ridiculous. And, in terms of the historical context, please keep in mind that we're probably talking about the 1960s here (considering that people are using Doctor Who colleagues as "proof" Hartnell wasn't racist). This was the post-war period, when people had already twigged that mindless anti-Semitism was not a good thing. This was the era of Civil Rights and the permanent dismantling of empire. No, not everybody was racist. Racists were racist. EttaLove (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, it must be great to have everything all worked out like EttaLove. Simply inflict your modern sensibilities on a period 50 years ago, and you'll look frightfully clever. I have no strong opinion on Hartnell, but I find the content of the above comment to be utterly incorrect in every aspect. Jonnycigarettes (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Jonnycigarettes, I do not understand exactly how you reached your criticism of my point. My entire comment was about how I did not "get" a specific argument i.e. how I did not understand it. How exactly does that figure into your idea that I think I've worked everything out? Literally, the point was that I did NOT understand. I tried to address a few different points in the 'Racism' section just because they did not make sense to me. I do not have strong opinions on Hartnell either; I do not know whether he was an anti-Semite or whatever else. I was just trying to work through some of the points that I didn't understand and some of the arguments that did not make sense to me. I am worried that some of the comments here are veering into the territory of chatting about the subject rather than discussing the article; so I don't think I will write any more. I just wanted to be clear on a couple of points. EttaLove (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Much has been made of this; what we can establish is that in none of the many interviews with Bill Hartnell, does he express any prejudice against anyone. And remember, Carole Ann Ford is Jewish, and she has always spoken of the warm affection between her and Bill. And honestly, does his views, if he had any, matter? If Bill indeed held certain ingrained prejudices and/or nationalist views, he was no different from most others of his generation...a generation whose only experience of foreigners in most cases was fighting them on the battlefields of World War II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.242.139 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As someone who is rather fond of the William Hartnell era I remember being quite shocked when I first read that WH was antisemitic, racist and homophobic.

While there may be some truth in these claims, now I'm just wandering if they've been wildly exaggerated. Hartnell had no problem working for Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert, both of whom were Jewish, and no problem working with Carole Ann Ford, who is also Jewish; and he also had no problem being directed in the first ever Doctor Who story by Waris Hussein, who is Asian and gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.254.167 (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.62 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hartnell got along with Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert, both of whom were Jewish; he grew a huge fondness for Carole Ann Ford, who is also Jewish; he had a close friendship for Waris Hussein, who is Asian and gay; and Hartnell also had a fondness for African American singer Paul Robeson; William Hartnell appears remarkably ‘multicultural’ and ahead of his time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.218 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As someone who is rather fond of the William Hartnell era I remember being quite shocked when I first read that WH was antisemitic, racist, and homophonic. The only stories I could find suggesting such claims are, Nicholas Courtney, who in his audio memoirs, said that during the recording of The Daleks' Master Plan, Hartnell mentioned that an extra on the set was Jewish, Courtney's inference being that Hartnell was prejudiced, and Anneke Wills, who has said, that during filming of 'The Tenth Planet', Hartnell was apparently being racist and dead against working with Black actor Earl Cameron.

While there may be some truth in these claims, now I'm just wandering if they've been wildly exaggerated. It apparently didn't occur to Courtney to consider why, if Hartnell was intolerant of the Jewish, why he didn't have any problem working with Carole Ann Ford, who was/is Jewish. Would Courtney himself have remarked on Hartnell saying "that extra is Jewish" back in 1966, or did he remain silent because that's what society was like at the time? Is it something he only thought worthy of mentioning some decades later when writing his memoirs? Was Hartnell merely a product of his time? As for Wills, it is worth remembering that she admits she wasn’t fond of working with Hartnell, yet she only joined him at the end of his run, and wasn’t with him thoughtout his tenure. Cameron says he was NOT aware at any point of any such problems with William Hartnell & says IF William was 'racist' against him he would only be very sorry about him having such issues. Additionally, Earl Cameron's character the chief ranking astronaught on the Zeus capsule in fact has NO scenes at all with The Doctor in the story - his character being up in space in a spacecraft that later explodes before it can return to Earth ...So as they had NO scenes together at all ...WOULD there have been any problems re the two actors working together? Presumably Hartnell said nothing unpleasant or brusque to him personally during the production.

If Hartnell did hold such views, then he was just simply a product of an earlier generation from an earlier time in history - NOT that is any excuse of course for 'racism' but possibly it might be an 'explanation'. Hartnell did live in a generation whose only experience of foreigners in most cases was fighting them on the battlefields of World War II. I have read a story of two men who utterly HATED Germans even years after the two World Wars...something that puzzled their grandchildren (for both men were very kindly loving Grandfathers to them as kids)

One of them saw action in the 'bloodbath' battle of The Somme in 1916 during The Great war (his younger brother was killed just two weeks before the Armistace in November 1918 too), while the other later took part in Chruchill's rather ill fated British Expeditionary force in Norway in WW2...getting shot up, suffering frost bite ( the Expeditionary force were all underequipped with only summer clothing ! - sound familiar ?)... while the totally unopposed Luftwaffe happily 'picked them off' on the beaches...(not a very clever plan Winston !)

This man saw pals of his SHOT by the Nazi's when they were unable to march any further due to blackened frozen feet as no prisoners were taken...

so their grandchildren could understand them (like the old Major in 'Fawlty Towers') having no time for 'Germans' later...after what they had seen - based on their own life experiences during a terrible time in history

- remember 'Anti Romulan' bigotry in Star Trek's classic 'Balance of Terror' episode...Styles was 'racist' due to his family having suffered losses in the earlier Earth / Romulan war...but he was shown to NOT be a bad guy in himself overall...!

One of the grandfather’s children went into one of the concentration camps in WW2 after it had been 'relieved' too - he could never forgive the horrors he had witnessed either

WE know you can't blame an entire country's people for wartime horrors...or later generations either of course, but IF you were caught up in a war & witnessed horrors etc, it might well alter your viewpoint no matter how illogically based on your own experiences

The grandfather’s son, who became the grandchildren’s father was in the post war Royal Navy, one job they got was assisting Local Police if any UK Sailors got into bar fights etc... he was helping in an African country once, they loaded the drunken sailors into a van & took them to Police H.Q. to 'sleep it off' in a cell before being put back onboard ship in disgrace & minus any privilges next morning...while at the Police station he saw two guys who had been brought in for killing their wives - the Police inspector showed him the long handed knives used to butcher the poor defenceless women...and the 'other instruments' the women had been horribly 'injured' with first

- the women's crimes ? - NOT having prepared dinner for the two men on time after they had been out drinking...!

The father was stunned & appalled - this was 1956 in a well known African county I won't name - the Police chief told the father & his Navy pal that this kind of murdering of women WAS COMMON by their quick to violence irate husbands...! - 'female life is especially cheap here...in fact all life is..' the Police chief guy told them

The father said to his children that he NEVER considered himself racist in any way...but the barbarianism he saw in a few countries made him shocked, amazed, and led him to understand why SOME people who witnessed such things while in other countries might then become racist in their views (plenty of equally terrible crimes have been committed by whites & British criminals at home & abroad too of course) ...and NOT that any 'excuse' can be made for racism (you must never generalise of course - plenty of white people are totally as evil & barabaric - Hitler being the prime example ) but by way of an explanation of why some folk might get to take such viewpoints based on their individual own life experiences ...

Plenty of people would have equal reason for feeling an 'Anti Whites' or 'Anti Westerners' racist viewpoint too...but again that is NO excuse for being racist against ANY colour, creed, etc...!

so I do wonder if William Hartnell had any earlier 'life experiences' that might have given rise to his apparent 'racist' attitude ? - bear in mind he did come from an earlier generation to the 'swinging sixties' far more cosmopolitan generation used to international travel & a more balanced viewpoint re all races etc...

Sadly we know that racism is only too 'alive & well' now (look at that appalling Russian crowd trying to upset the Manchester City footballer last week !) Angry

I do wonder if while we don't EXCUSE racist attitudes in people of an earlier era (where it was sadly not made "socially unacceptable" - as say something like 'smoking' too- at least we can EXPLAIN why people of Hartnell's generation might have had such attitudes...remember in the fifties the 'No Coloureds' sign was up in a zillion landladies windows acrossd London & other major UK cities - today that seems incredible...but not that long ago it was seen as quite acceptable (wrongly of course !)

so for Anneke Wills to pick out William Hartnell and 'be ashamed for him' was perhaps a tad 'on her morale high horse' judging him as she was a younger 'swinging sixties chick' (by her own admission) and came from a VERY different time than Hartnell had

I hasten to add I am NOT defending any racist views Hartnell might have had, but only his 'era' might well have encouraged (or at least NOT discouraged !) any such views, while the far younger Anneke was brought up in a very different Britain (on the surface at least) and she would have had a totally different & presumably far more enlightened viewpoint ...yes ?

If Hartnell's racism/nationalism was limited to a couple of quiet guarded comments, then I don't see that as being a big issue because it suggests that he was tolerant enough to not be outspoken. If Hartnell had survived a few decades longer, who's to say that any guarded intolerances he may or may not have had were things he might have grown out of as society changed around him? Perhaps he was already in that process of change, hence why he didn't thrown his weight around when the people he objected to were hired? If he was in a process of change, of learning, isn't that a positive thing?

Finally, it is worth bearing in mind, that more realible and huge supporting accounts have Hartnell getting along with people of races he was said to have held negative views towards. Hartnell had no problem working for Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert, both of whom were Jewish, and no problem working with Carole Ann Ford, who is also Jewish; Carole Ann Ford gets visibly upset with the accusations surrounding Hartnell saying in her time on the show he was lovely, and Verity Lambert always spoke warmly of Hartnell. William Russell & Peter Purves also both speak fondly of him (and they, along with Ford, were with him longer then Wills). Hartnell also had no problem being directed in the first ever Doctor Who story by Waris Hussein, who is Indian and gay. Hussein has said, that first impressions notwithstanding, he and Hartnell got along with each other. When he first met Hartnell, he felt terrible because he thought Hartnell was a very opinionated man and prejudiced, and he felt he was looked down upon because he was an Asian kid, although none of this was spoken between them. First impressions notwithstanding, Waris eventually got on very well with Hartnell, so much so, that Hartnell was sincerely heartbroken when Waris left the show. Hartnell also had a fondness for African American singer Paul Robeson (In his Desert Island Discs interview, Hartnell stated that Paul Robeson was his hero and described him as having a voice like crushed velvet); William Hartnell appears remarkably ‘multicultural’ and ahead of his time. In fact, that Hartnell was very warm throughout most of his run, is probably why Wills remembers Hartnell in a somewhat negative light, since she was with him at the end of his run; people who worked him with at the start and were with him longer may have forgiven him, when he went into a sour mood; people who just started working with him, probably wouldn’t have.

Like I say, I don't deny the possibility that William Hartnell may have held views that today would not be tolerated, they were not unusual however (many people had similar views) and he appears to have been willing to put aside his previous prejudices to have close relationships with minority members of the cast and crew. When he grew ill at the end of his run, and his moods would change, then the grumpy side of him began to emerge, and possibly say some terrible comments. He was certainly not blindingly racist as some seem to believe. We can then understand him, we can forgive him, yet certainly not the views he occasionally espoused. Had Bill still been with us today, he would hopefully feel the same way, looking back on a different time and place from the better one we are now in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.64.71 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Coming to this much later, the whole section on this was overwhelming the article. It was referenced sure, but not important to his career. It would only be so if his racism was key in him not getting roles etc and you'd need a source for that. Otherwise it's all just gossip. Removed.Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Relation to Norman Hartnell
It's fairly easy to show that he is 3C1R to Norman Hartnell, the Queen's designer - and NOT 2C0R, as the article states. Common ancestors: Bishop Hartnell (1733-74) = Mary Lackington. The quotes ref / source is incorrect.... Icairns 2 (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)