Jump to content

Talk:Jack Harkness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.146.80.110 (talk) at 15:01, 16 December 2011 (Face of Boe error). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleJack Harkness has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 13, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 25, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
October 6, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Is it right to call the doctor older?

isn't jack at least 2000 years old now? the doctor is only 900, barely a baby compared to jack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.224.10 (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a recent development. Anyway, it still stands in terms of meaning, or should it be changed for pedantic accuracy?~ZytheTalk to me! 10:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way it is currently written makes it clear that it is referring to his initial travels with the Doctor.--Trystan (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually wondering if we should attempt to keep track of Jacks age. It's obviously difficult to give a precise number. If we assume he was around 40 in Parting of Ways (which is about how old the actor was) then we can estimate his age as: 40(initial age) + 140 (time he lives between Parting of ways and first Torchwood episode) + 2 (2 seasons of torchwood) + 1874 (buried underground) + 107 (in stasis) = 2163. 118.208.173.213 (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jack IS boe

i know there have been other discussions about this but i now have proof that jack IS boe (i think) boe dies in the year 5 billion and 53 (or some time near that) BUT he knows about yana who exists in the year something TRILLION, a bit more than a billion, so how else could boe know about yana unless he is actually jack and also i think its very unlikely the doctorwho writers will throw in a wild gosse chase about a charecter we are probably never going to see again81.108.233.59 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but we can't theorise in the actual article as that would violate the policy Wikipedia: No original research. Paul730 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. Feel free to compile a compelling argument for it at Tards Index File, though.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this anal-retentiveness the epitome of why Wikipedia is a failure. Watch Last of the Time-Lords, people. It's there in dialogue. Jack is Boe. There is no debate nor is there original research involved. End of story. Full stop. <shrek>See you later.</shrek> If Davies didn't intend it he would never have written it, and if he didn't want it, he calls the shots, he could have removed it. He didn't, so there for it is what it is. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what your problem is. The episode implied it, and so does the article. It's not like we're ignoring it or something, it's mentioned. Look, I agree with you that Jack is Boe, I agree that Davis wouldn't have bothered writing it if he didn't intent it to mean what it implied. But that doesn't mean we need a "Jack = Boe" fancruft essay in the article. It's a minor aspect of the Jack Harkness character, and is treated as such. What do you expect?  Paul  730 08:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, Helen Raynor dismissed this theory playfully. So we're being neutral too. The whole thing was a gag really. Alientraveller (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What more information do we need? The article is inexplicit and the sufficient sources are attached for you to make your mind up.~ZytheTalk to me!17:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is debated why does the Face of Boe article state it as a fact, that page mentions it was confirmed at Comic Con 2008. Maybe this new information should be added. Tordre (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually look, there's an extremely recent RTD quote on the subject which captures the entire argument. It's an intentional ambiguity. We as fans are not here to "solve" it.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind could you link to said quote. It is not that I don't trust you it is just I cannot find it anywhere Tordre (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of "Development", [1].~ZytheTalk to me! 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Also, I've added an image of Boe (free image) to the article to accompany the real-world information about the connection; there is no motive to suppress whether or not Jack is Boe (it does not matter and I do not care), simply an adherence to Wikipedia policy and not stretching beyond the sourced information and the textual information.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 return

it says on the gallifreyone page that jack is returning in the next series, could someone definitely confirm this? --hello????? 12:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is. Barrowman himself confirmed it. Will (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character History Continuity Error?

When Jack first appears in Doctor Who, he is named "Jack Harkness." But later in Torchwood, we find that his real name is James Harper and he picked up the name "Jack Harkness" during WWII. A Captain named "Jack Harkness" went out on a mission, was killed, and James (our Jack) assumed his identity.

But then, how did he come by the name "Jack Harkness" in Doctor Who? Jack, after he was finished with the Doctor and Rose, was left back in early Earth and had to live through its history to get to the present. Thus, he would have assumed the identity of "Jack Harkness" after he met the Doctor and Rose.

Now, it is true that Jack meets the Doctor and Rose during WWII but at that point in his timeline, he's still got his hypertech and isn't trying to blend in on Earth. He's merely using that point in time because he happens to know that on Date X, Time Y, a bomb will fall on location Z. He isn't interacting with any locals and has no need to assume anybody's identity.

So where did James really acquire the name of "Jack"? --Rrhain 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His name was Jack in his first appearance, the writers retroactively revealed that Jack was not his true name. If that creates continuity errors, well, that's fiction for you. I'm sure someone could come up with a plausible explanation. Unless the writers have acknowledged this plot hole and commented on it in a published source, it wouldn't be relevant for us to discuss it in the article and any theories would be original research. You might want to ask over at the Doctor Who wiki, I think they allow fan speculation in articles.  Paul  730 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I was hoping that somebody who is more slavishly devoted to following Torchwood than I might have a reference to the question of Jack's name and once we had a source, it could then be referenced. That's why I brought it up here. Ah well...off to the other site, then. Perhaps they'll know. --Rrhain 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Jack's first appearance he is a member of the RAF and is deeply entrenched enough in life there to have a relationship with fellow officers. So I don't think it is accurate at all to say he "isn't trying to blend in on Earth." We have no way of knowing how long Jack spent in WWII prior to meeting the Doctor. I don't see any continuity problem or retcon. Queer Scout (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought he assumed the name of Jack Harkness right before his first appearance, when the Doctor and Rose meet him in WWII. You say doesn't interact with any locals, but he is seen talking to several soldiers, and apparently is having a sexual relationship with one of them. Presumably he just created the Harkness identify for their benefit because he wanted to explore the era and shag people. :P  Paul  730 06:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-where is there any evidence that "Jack Harper" is his real name anymore that "Jack Harkness" is. He started to stay "Jack Harkess" in CJH but realized he had to use something else as soon as he heard the real captain's name. "Harper" sounds close enough to "Harkness" that it wouldn't draw attention to the slip-up. That's the only reason he chose that name. 76.99.247.178 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the episode does reveal definitively that Jack Harkness is not the character's real name. This needs to be mentioned in the article, so I will add it now (it's worth noting the Jack Harper alias, too, but I agree it's not any sort of continuity error). 68.146.41.232 (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead probably isn't the place to go into that level of detail, but I agree it should be included in the article. Either that, or the currently unexplained and unsupported sentence in the lead that "his real name is unknown" should be removed.--Trystan (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a cotinuity error the empty child takes place after the true Captain Jack Harkness died, so he simply assumed the name and although it's slightly more complicated than that I hope you guys can see what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benv-b92 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the previous poster. The mistake he's making is that he's viewing the sequence of events from his own (presumably linear) time-line. To make sense of the order in which things happen to a time traveller you have to view things from the point of view of the time traveller himself. To the best of our knowledge based on the information presented to us by the two programmes, the character we know as Jack Harkness has lived during the early 1940s twice. That is to say, his personal time-line passes through that era twice (just as Rose's personal time-line passes through the day of her father's death three times). Jack first appears in the 1940 as a con man in "The Empty Child". At the end of "The Doctor Dances" he's transported in the TARDIS into the future where he's subsequently exterminated by the Daleks and resurrected by Rose. Abandoned on Satellite 5 he travels back in time by "jump starting his wrist device" but his aim is a bit off and he arrives on Earth in the late 19th century and has to live through the whole of the 20th century to get to when he wanted to be. Therefore, he has to live through the 1940s for a second time and could, had he been unaware of the dangers, have met himself with Rose and the Doctor in London during the blitz. Since he knows a bit about time travel he presumably kept well clear. However, with respect to his own personal time-line, Jack meets the real Jack Harkness and assumes his identity about seventy years or so after meeting Rose and the Doctor. Therefore I believe there is a continuity error... unless for some reason Jack had at some point on his personal time-line prior to the events of "The Empty Child" reason to visit Earth during the 1940s (perhaps during his service for the Time Agency?) and had observed his future self with the real Jack Harkness. That way he would know that at some point in his future he would assume that name and would presumably be cautious about using his true name from that point on. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When Jack first met the Doctor and Rose he was a conman, pretending to be an RAF pilot (amongst other things). He adopted the name then, as part of his con, so he might have an Earth identity (how else did he get into the RAF officers' club?). No continuity error there. Gwinva (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Jack's need to adopt an assumed name during that episode but I don't believe he would by coincidence choose the name of a man he was not to meet for at least another seventy years. Although "The Empty Child" and "Captain Jack Harkness" are both set in the 1940s the two events are separated on Jack's own personal time-line by over seventy years. Such are the complexities of time travel. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was why he was so shocked to meet the real Jack Harkness. He chose the name quite casually from a list; 70 (or more) years later he meets the man; the drama of the episode is him coming to terms with the real man behind the name he stole. Gwinva (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's well over a hundred years for Jack between The Empty Child and Captain Jack Harkness, since he travels following The Parting of the Ways to 1869, then lives through the next 138 years until 2007. At that point, he and Toshiko are transported back to the 1940s. It's meant to be a surprising coincidence or twist of fate that he would run into his namesake who was doomed to die the next day, that's what drives the episode's story.--Trystan (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Gwinva and Trystan. The idea that "Jack" chose the name from a list of RAF officers some time before meeting Rose and the Doctor in "The Empty Child" and then, much later, was shocked by actually meeting the man, is extremely plausible and I'm satisfied with it as an explanation. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Harper is a bit too 20th century for a 51st century character:) Type 40 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Harper was never his real name, he just made it up because he didnt know what to say,

although there are issues i think with this, because in the series 2 finalé even his own brother calls him jack, why would he do that!?Harmless 77 (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe John told him. Or maybe it's just his surname that isn't Harkness.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's safe to say Gray found out Jack's alias from Captain John Hart. Digifiend (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character History

I always come to Wikipedia for everything but I've given up on the Jack Harkness article. This is mostly because there is no "character history" part. It's a bunch of things that are useful, sure, but to find his history I have to read each and every part. I don't want to go through appearances, characterisation and critical reception to find out everything. Plus a lot is being left out, I'm guessing. I just don't care enough to read it all and check because his history isn't in one space, like Gwen's, Owen's, Toshiko's and Ianto's is. Even Adam, a character that appeared with the Ninth Doctor and Rose for just two episodes, has a character history - with a lot of detail for someone of such short screen time.

So. More or less, is there a chance there can be a character history spot? I don't remember enough to do it, which is why I look stuff up. - Babylon pride (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines on articles on fictional characters in Wikipedia emphasize the real-world significance and development of the character, and I think this article does a good job in presenting that sort of article. In-universe biographies and chronologies are more suited to fan sites. The Tardis Doctor Who wiki has a good article on Jack in that respect.[2]--Trystan (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the first person to comment on this. As you can see here, the article used have a similar character history to the other Doctor Who/Torchwood pages you mentioned, as well as sections about his "powers" and romances. However, all of that is in-universe information, and was removed as part of an ongoing effort to bring the article to FA status. As Trystan said, the Tardis Wikia should have the info you're looking for.  Paul  730 13:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some character history, summarised. Episode-by-episode would require reading about those episodes, otherwise it's just bloat. The ultimate goal is that all Wikipedia articles will focus more on the real-world facts, and the Wikia ones will focus on the fictional universe information.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. But here's the thing. Everyone from Torchwood (but Jack) has a history. Mickey, Donna, Martha, even Astrid who was there for just one episode has a history. Jack, who is the center of a show, doesn't have one. I can sort of understand for the Doctor. He has so many different actors but he has a background which is sort of a history, going about his past. Jack's is so behind-the-scenes and what not (like Alan-WK said) that it's hard to tell what he really is about. Say I wanted to find out who that friend of his was from Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang. There is no clear way to go through and find it. If I go to Mickey's page and I want to find out about his grandmother, I can clearly find out that he was left with her when he was young and was raised by her and she was blind. Later, she died by slipping on a damaged carpet he did not fix. Jack? I can't find anything simply and would have to do an internet search with the guy's name.
It's all behind the scenes, reception, magazine stuff. Which is great, but shouldn't just be the main article. Someone should be able to come who has no idea of who he is but heard about it from a friend and find out who he is, his past with both Doctors, and his past with Torchwood. Instead they find out how people like his portrayal by John Barrowman. Not really that helpful. I think once you've seen the show and become so accustomed to it, you forget that people use this site to try and see if they want to watch shows. I know I did that with Doctor Who, and Lost, and Heroes. If I had read Jack's page, I would've never wanted to see the show, so completely lost.
Also. Sending someone off to Tardis Wikia isn't really a wise choice. Isn't this page supposed to have everything? (It has everything for every other character, after all.) Plus that site doesn't exactly have that high of standards. - Babylon pride (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't meant to have everything, it's meant to be a general encyclopedia. The information need you are describing is very much a fan-oriented one, which is much better fulfilled by a fan-oriented wiki. Interwiki-ing works out best for everyone. As more and more of the in-universe description gets diverted away from Wikipedia to fan wikis such as The Tardis, their quality is improving by leaps and bounds.
As for the other character articles that you mention, they would ideally in time be brought up to the standard of this one.--Trystan (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what Trystan said. Wikipedia isn't written for Doctor Who fans, it's not a biography on Jack and the level of in-universe detail that you're requesting isn't necessary. See WP:PLOT; the article isn't to provide story info for people who've missed an episode, it's to provide encyclopedic information on the creation, development, and reception on the character of Jack. If Jack's relationship with John is important to the character, it should have some real world context - was John created to explore Jack's past etc etc. We link to the Tardis Wikia because it serves a purpose Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't. Just because other articles have too much plot doesn't mean this one should.  Paul  730 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to change about twenty other articles because you like this one? That's a bit pompous, I would say. Why don't you go around and change every character on Lost, on Heroes, on Supernatural and Doctor Who also? This isn't a standard. You're not including things. (And the other stuff exists thing? Really? Because I'd go with including them in the same family since they're all the same show and everything has more or less the same format except this one which, somehow, mutated into something of its own kind.)
You're making it more difficult for people. It would be very easy to just add a part at the top that says "Character History" and have the major key points of his background and what has happened in Doctor Who and Torchwood, since he is one of the very few to go between both shows. But that's not important either. And neither is trying to explain the character - just how he was created and what people think of him, but don't explain why he's bisexual, or what events in his life have happened to lead him to these points.
I'm not asking you to include story info. (Like I said, I would do it but I, one, don't remember enough and two, I can't word things correctly as I end up giving it a POV-edge sometimes.) I'm asking you to include things that coincide with him, like his love interest with Gwen, and the fact that he also loves Ianto, and had a five year but actually two week relationship with James Marster's character. It's a skim over of everything, telling what happened - both for people who don't know, and people who do and want to look it up. Whatever. Since you own apparently the article, do as you please. (: -Babylon pride (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be short, all those articles mentioned are of poor quality by Wikipedia standards. No one owns the article, it's a case of not being able to enter the information if it doesn't in some way matter. For example, if it is commented upon in any format (Torchwood Declassified, a Companion book or annual, or an academic / widely-read article.) For example, if The New York Times or AfterElton.com discussed Jack's portrayal of a character who has lots of romantic relationships with multiple genders, then it goes in the characterisation section. ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know no one owns it but you're acting like you do. I just don't get how they're poor when I am positive that well over 90% of the character pages out there - about any show - have some sort of history, whether background or character history or what not. To have one that just involves people dealing with the character isn't about the character then, or at least not fully. A page about the character would have a page about the character. A page about Nikki and Paulo or Jack Sparrow, both featured articles mind you, have appearances in there. Appearances, like Jack's, tells you what went on in their life. Only it doesn't skim over it - it tells you in vivid detail. Jack Sparrow's goes on for six very long paragraph, and has such vivid detail such as, "This time, however, Sparrow discovers that the rum runners had abandoned the island. Elizabeth uses the rum to start a fire, and the pair are rescued by the British Royal Navy." But it isn't important, right? All I'm saying is you leave out so much, because you don't have anything about his old Time Agent friend, or anything about Estelle - who was such a major part of his life apparently. It's just missing a lot before it can become a featured article and that's what every article is intended to be, right?-Babylon pride (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of Jack Sparrow - there are also some Star Wars FAs which have detailed plot sections - which is why I'm wondering whether you have a point. I've asked User:Bignole, whose opinion I value, what he thinks and he said Jack Sparrow may be overly detailed but isn't certain about Jack Harkness. The problem about including stuff about John is that he only first appeared last Wednesday, we don't know how much of a role he'll actually have in the long run. Estelle wasn't that notable - she was important to Jack, sure, but the problem with in-universe perspective is that what's important to the fictional character isn't always notable in the real world. You end up giving undue weight to a minor aspect of the show. A fictional biography/character history is in-universe, and would fall victim to the problems listed at the link above, especially with a characer who's past is as convoluted as Jack's. We shouldn't have a character history, nor the "vivid detail" of Jack Sparrow, but I'm wondering whether slightly more detail in the appearances section is neccessary or not.  Paul  730 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had a whole run of stripping the article to barebones in-universe stuff, due to there being a perception it was misbalanced against the OOU stuff. The problem with Jack, is that rather than appear in 66 episode of Buffy, then 100-and-something of Angel with crossovers, Jack sort of intersects smaller 13-episode series of shows which do not air concurrently. Therefore the paragraphing structure has the potential to get out of hand (I remember someone adding 4 paragraphs about "Utopia".) With some of the Buffy characters, you have the potential to summarise character by season. As Jack has only appeared in Doctor Who in 8 episodes and Torchwood in 14 (so far) you have to consider the long term stability of the article as more backstory gets revealed. The first article of Jack's "televison" section does have room to expand on his backstory - although it may be a safer bet to wait for the reveals about "Grey" and John Hart and others to come out in the show first.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention like I wanted to in my last comment. The amount of Jack Sparrow's detail is a bit too much. If there was that much, along with everything else which is very useful I do admit, it would be overpowering and just frankly long. But as long as you both agree - or even slightly agree - that more detail needs to go in.
I do understand how it can become one-episode orientated though. Utopia could be skimmed over though, and just facts would be needed. Like who John (that's his name? That's what I came to look up originally and got pissed off that it wasn't here) is, and that he had a love interest with Estelle - even if it's mentioned briefly in less than a sentence. Things can be skimmed over, but the facts, at least the bare facts, need to be there in my opinion. At least we've come to some sort of agreement. Finally. (: - Babylon pride (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EDIT CONFLICT) Zythe is right that Jack has only been around for about three years and 22 episodes, so a huge appearances section isn't really appropiate. Also, whereas Buffy and Angel have big season-spanning story arcs that are easily summarised, Doctor Who and Torchwood are more monster of the week, so you run the risk of it becoming "Jack fought this alien, then he fought that alien, then he... blah blah". To avoid violating WP:IN-U, if we were discussing Jack's bachstory, we would have to discuss it in the manner and order it was presented in the show, not the order it occured in in the fictional continuity. But still, the article isn't all that long and is largely out-of-universe information. Zythe, do you think we should have a little more detail in the appearances section? Perhaps about who Gwen and Ianto are, and his relationship to them? This source (which was in the old version of the article linked above, but was removed for some reason) discusses the Jack/Gwen thing, so a little context in the article might not hurt.  Paul  730 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy

  • "Jack's character history is presented simultaneously in the two television series as well as through flashbacks and exposition which relay his backstory, events of his earlier life." -- name the shows, as this is the beginning of the first section of the article, and if "events of his earlier life" is the same thing as "backstory" then just end the sentence with "backstory". If it isn't, then add "and" after the comma.
  • "These events detail that Jack is initially a 51st century "Time Agent"[1] (although what a Time Agent does remains unclear), a former prisoner of war,[2] and later a con artist with lost memories and a stolen name." -- Needs to be tightened. There's no need for the "un"explainationi of "Time Agent", as I see that it has a link to a page, so I assume it's explained there. What do you mean "former prisoner of war"? Does he remember being a prisoner of war, or did he wake up with the knowledge that he once was, but just doesn't remember the details? Because you're already talking about his "former" life, the "former" in the "former prisoner of war" isn't necessary because we already know what he currently is.
  • "The decision behind Jack's absence in the 2006 series was so that the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose could be explored." -- I'd move this to the next paragraph, right after the first sentence.
  • "First airing in 2006, Jack returned as the star of spin-off series Torchwood (in which he appears in every episode), now leading Torchwood, a Cardiff-based organisation dedicated to protecting Britain from alien threats." -- "in which he appears in every episode" is not necessary, that's implied when you say he's the "star of the series". Reword the last bit to say something more like, "...,leading the Cardiff-based organisation Torchwood that is dedicated to ..." The two times you use the word "Torchwood" in that sentence were just a little too close to each other.
  • "In the series, Jack is a changed man,[8] having become immortal after his resurrection and then waiting on Earth for the Doctor since the 19th century." -- This is awkward sounding. The end statement seems tacked on, and with little context.
  • "Despite having worked with him for some time, his present-day colleagues know very little about him." -- This just seems out of place for this section. I don't know if it's meant to illustrate the clouded backstory of Jack, which not even his team knows about. Maybe it needs context as to why it's relevant that his team don't know that much about him, because one could say that about a lot of "real" captains in tv shows.

Based on what I've read regarding the television appearances, and how much of the article is devoted to the IU information, I can see you fleshing that section out a little more. When I read it, it seemed a little weak in being about to correlate what happened to him in the show. I think maybe too much was cut from what was originally there before the article was cleaned up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix the problems you mention and add a little more detail... what do you think? Is there any crucial info missing, and does the info there make sense? One think I don't agree with you about is moving "The decision behind Jack's absence in the 2006 series was so that the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose could be explored." to the next paragraph - keeping it next to the moment where he was written out of the show makes sense to me.  Paul  730 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I suggested moving it is because there is no indication that he was or wasn't coming back to Doctor Who. You have added context to the statement now, so it makes better sense as to why it sits there.
  • This statement--"These events detail that Jack is initially a 51st century "Time Agent",[1] a prisoner of war,[2] and later a con artist with lost memories and a stolen name."--should probably be reworded a bit more. Since I don't know the character I'm only guessing, but I assume that he was initially a Time Agent, then he became a prisoner of war, and most recently (before Torchwood) he became a con artist. Otherwise, it reads like he was all those things at the same time.
    • And this?
      • I was trying to think of a way to reword it and got sidetracked... those details about his past are revealed in different episodes, and the order they're revealed don't corropsond (sp?) to their chronological order. He was a POW, then a Time Agent, then a con man. But from our perspective, it's revealed he is a Time Agent, con man, then POW. I dunno, these things are offscreen and so vague. Except the con man thing, he was introduced as a con man.  Paul  730 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about, "The events reveal that Jack was once a prisoner of war, and later a 51st century Time Agent, before being introduced on Doctor Who as a con artist." ??  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "shot dead" could probably be replaced with simply "killed". "Shot dead" just sounds odd, at least it does to me.
  • Would "The character returned in 2006 as the star of his own spin-off series, title Torchwood,..." be a better beginning of the next paragraph? We already know his name is Jack (well, known as Jack).
  • "spent years on Earth to reunite with the Doctor." -- Should this be, "spent years on Earth waiting to reunite.."??
  • "Jack recruits policewoman Gwen Cooper to his team, and there are hints of romance between them,[10] as well as between Jack and existing employee Ianto Jones." - I'd maybe put a semi-colon after "team" and start the new clause with "there". These are really two independent statements that are connected to each other.
  • "Series 1 finale "End of Days" uses the sound of the Doctor's TARDIS to foreshadow the character's return to Doctor Who." -- Could you explain this? I don't understand what you mean by "uses the sound of the TARDIS".
    • The TARDIS makes a "voop voop voop" noise when it arrives and departs, this is heard in the TW series finale to signal the return of the Doctor. How should that be reworded, do you think?
      • "Voop voop voop"?? lol. Anyway, when does it make the noise? I'm trying to get a feel of context as to how that noise is supposed to trigger the foreshadowing of the doctor. Did Jack hear it, was it played at the end of the episode? If Jack heard it, did he make some remark that indicated it was foreshadowed? I ask this because the source is the episode itself, so if it said it explicitely then it's ok, but if this is based off of knowing the sound of TARDIS then we need a better source.
        • The TARDIS noise is iconic, plus Jack's "Doctor detector" machine went off. They don't explicitly mention the Doctor or the TARDIS, but Jack heard it and ran out of the building, then his friends were like "He's gone!" Here's the scene - it's been edited to include DW footage, so the scenes actually showing the TARDIS/Doctor weren't in the TW episode (sorry, I couldn't find the scene by itself, it's probably just going to confuse you even more...). I dunno, it probably wouldn't be too hard to find a source sayig it was foreshadowing if it's really a problem.  Paul  730 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reading it, I don't see it as pertinent to understanding the situation. It could be just as simple to say that the Doctor returns, with his new companion, Martha" and then explain things as they go from there. If the doctor doesn't return until after "Utopia", then it should be mentioned after that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in which Jack reunites with the Doctor and meets his new companion, Martha." -- The Doctor's new companion, or Jack's new companion? If it's Jack's then it's fine, if it's the Doctor's then I'd remove "meets" as "new" indicates that Jack probably doesn't know her.
  • "...shows Jack learning the origin of his immortality and reveals how he returned from Satellite 5 to the present day; by travelling to 1869 via vortex manipulator and living throughout the entire 20th century." -- not the place for a semi-colon, as the second statement is a dependent clause, there's no subject. Either the second part needs to be reworded to be a complete sentence, or the whole statement reworded to remove the semicolon.

I took care of some other things myself, but not what I have up here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Does anything else need to be explained? I'm not the authority on the subject, so I can't read this and go "hey, what about this?" Oh, and I had no trouble reading through it and staying on track with the information, given his time travelling nature. But, I think you have room to expand a bit more, if you need to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5094?

In the Series 2 Torchwood episode Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Captain John Hart says to Jack "Rear of the year, 5094". Can we assume from that comment that Jack comes from sometime in the 5090's just to narrow it down slightly? – Alan-WK (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you wrote this months ago, but I'm still gonna hug you, 'cause so few sites/people seemed to notice this comment, and as soon as I heard it, I thought, "Yes, we can narrow it down to the Middle - Late 5000's and not the Early - Middle 5000's"...so thank you [User: Stripey]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.87.132 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be hard to work it into his backstory without it being a bit speccy/in-universe. I think maybe after all of Torchwood series 2 has aired, and they've delved further into the character's backstory, we can more effectively start incorporating that information.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that in the upcoming episode Adam (Torchwood), there is a huge "delving into Jack's past sequence" and I imagine that, seeing as they have such a specific year in which his rear was so highly acclaimed, there may be some more definitive dating. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He would have to be from the late 51st century, because Magnus Greel's work with Zygma beams is also in the 51st century, and that was a dead-end as far as time travel was concerned. Yes, it worked, but it disrupted DNA and could cause some sort of implosion, if I remember "The Talons of Wiang Chang" Lochlyn.Christante (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's Family

How come there is no mention of Jack's family in the article, including Jack's brother Grey and his father (Franklyn?). Leo (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's not even a mention of the Boeshane Peninsula, and that's not even new information. anemone│projectors 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added info about Gray, Jack's dad, and the Boeshane Penninsula, since "Adam" depicted all three in a fair ammount of onscreen detail and they are all quite significant to Jack as a character. My only concern is that the name "Boeshane Penninsula" is confusing and meaningless to non-fans, a bit of rewording might be needed. Does it read okay?  Paul  730 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have called the Boeshane Peninsula "alien", but there's no reason to assume it is not located on earth. TharkunColl (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, I'll fix that. Isn't Jack confirmed to be an alien though? Didn't John Barrowman confirm that somewhere?  Paul  730 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When Jack first appeared, he told Rose he was "mostly human" I seem to remember. TharkunColl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, what do you think about giving the article a "background" section, separate from Appearances to clearly define what we know about the character? I'm afraid that following the out-of-universe format may confuse readers.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where were you thinking of putting it? Hmm, normally I'm not a fan of in-universe "biographies" for characters (at least not on Wikipedia, they're great on Wikia) but given Jack's rather confusing history, it might actually make sense to have something like that to clarify backstory. Provided it's kept in summary form and doesn't become full of trivial information. Yeah, go ahead if you think it's necessary to provide clarity.  Paul  730 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would "backstory" or "background" work as a subsection of Appearances or require its own (small) section just before it?~ZytheTalk to me! 12:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with the exception of the "Adam" flashbacks, not much of Jack's backstory has actually appeared onscreen, so Appearances might not be appropiate. You're probably right that it should be a separate section just before Appearances, having it afterwards might defeat the purpose of making things less confusing.  Paul  730 12:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Background" or "backstory"?~ZytheTalk to me! 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Backstory" Sounds more fictional IMO.  Paul  730 13:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we should make that section purposefully more in-universe to contrast with the Appearances/out-of-univers section? As long as it doesn't get into a comic booky "publication history" vs "fictional character biography" (ugh) format then I'm fine with it. Off to work now, change as necesssary. Then we'll work on the lead and nominate FA again.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what that was made its own section. You took information from the Appearances section and just added a couple of sentences. Why exactly couldn't those sentences have gone in his television appearance section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't actual appearances (except for last ep, which had flashbacks). All the stuff about the Time Agency and being a prisoner of war were exposition through dialogue. To put them in an appearances section implies (to me, at least) that they were depicted onscreen. Why, do you not think the section needs to exist?  Paul  730 18:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But where did the exposition take place? Was it in a television episode, or was it in an interview with the creators? Even if exposition doesn't actually appear on screen, but is simple narration, it's still an "appearance" on television. If a narrator said that Jason wasn't cremated, as originally said in a scene from A New Beginning, but was buried by his father...that would still fall under film appearances, because it occurred on film. If these events occurred on a television episode then that is where they should be listed. If they occurred in literature (which I don't believe, since the sources listed next to them are episode citations), then you'd put it on literature. The section is redundant because you're basically summarizing events from the television series--even if they weren't literally "seen" on screen--and then immediately starting a new section to talk about his appearances on TV. It should all be there, just simply identified as "through exposition in episode X, it is revealed that .... ".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bignole that everything should be included under "Appearances". I think the best approach to ensuring that the character is discussed as an object of the narrative is to describe his character development in the context in which it was presented. This is what the "Appearances" section does, following the chronology of the presentation and not of the fictional universe; it has been a particular strength of the article. I don't find the "Appearances" section unclear; it does lack the biographical approach that would be more appropriate in a fan wiki, but that's unavoidable (and undesirable) when working under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Trystan (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) The section was created to draw a line between present day events actually happening onscreen, and backstory exposition, to clarify the potentially confusing continuity. Making it an entirely separate section was my idea I believe because I didn't think exposition counted as an "appearance". How about making the background section a subsection of "appearances" then?  Paul  730 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the in-u format should be avoided on Wikipedia, and I agree that this article is stronger for doing that, but the concern was that the constant revelations about Jack's past would make for confusing reading. We never wanted to return to the "Character history" layout, just try to make sense of Jack's backstory.  Paul  730 19:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it could be confusing if you list things in the order in which they are presented on screen. Even if the events depicted take place in the past, through exposition, it doesn't change the fact that they were presented in the present. I don't see where any confusion is when I read the section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly just trying to appease.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bisexual?

Didn't the Doctor call him Omnisexual? He's do it with anything that moves?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's covered in the article. See the quote box. We call him bi in the lead section for simplicity - non-fans may not know what "omnisexual" means. He's basically bisexual, omnisexual is just some sci fi Torchwood term.  Paul  730 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither term is used within the series. There's a quote where Barrowman and Davies explain that "omnisexual" as a term only works within the science fiction context; Jack is otherwise a bisexual character. Anything that moves does seem rather hyperbolic, applied mostly outside the series by commentators. While its true of Captain John, we've yet to see Jack lust after poodles. ~ZytheTalk to me! 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the term "pansexual" be more appropriate, then? --76.66.17.118 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Popeurban[reply]

Not really. What's so pan by real-world usage of the term?

"[H]e’s bisexual, but in the realm of the show, we call him omnisexual, because on the show, [the characters] also have sex with aliens who take human form, and sex with male-male, women-women, all sorts of combinations." - John Barrowman.

The whole pansexuality aspect is sort of limited, and somewhat unexplored. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The real-world usage refers to people who don't have a sexuality that is limited to just the the typical gender binary of male and female, but also intersex individuals. I think. They may or may not be an intersex individual themselves. --GracieLizzie (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's sort of a ... side step. "Omnisexual" used in the context of Jack, means "bisexual with aliens", as it explicitly states in two sourced (the quoted one, and the Canadian Press one).~ZytheTalk to me! 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article incorrectly states (in two locations) that Jack is the first "non-heterosexual character in the history of televised Doctor Who". This statement is incorrect as Cassandra indicates that she was a boy on earth and has had husbands (see Cassandra (Doctor Who) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

As a side note, I apologize for the manner in which I provided this information before as I had not really intended to be involved in the process of maintaining this article but dropped a comment into the article for it to be updated by a regular editor / moderator but found that it was edited out over two updates without the information being corrected. I hope that this attempt for correction is better received. Also I am not sure if this “note” is appropriate either but figure it can be removed if not appropriate.

PAMJR (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya PAMJR. No worries! This note is lovely. I felt the context of the original quote implied that, at the very least, Jack is the first main character in the televised Doctor Who to be explicitly confirmed to be non-heterosexual. Cassandra's off-hand reference to being trans was a milestone, but very much one for the average fan. Jack has been the first character for whom this has been of any notability (as one editor specified with an ammendment "in the mainstream press".) My take on the subject -- and I may be wrong -- is that because lead sections have to be written in a particular way, nitpicky details can (and should) be overlooked. These paragraphs are intended to be a highly-accessible introduction to the article. What are your thoughts? Do you think it manages that? I'd like to hear from you. Please keep editing! Yours, ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How appropriate is it for a programme aimed mainly at children to promote homosexuality/pansexuality or whatever you call it. Or sexuality of any type?JohnC (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not aimed at children at all, SJA is aimed at children, Doctor Who is aimed at families, Torchwood is aimed at adults. And it no more promotes homosexuality than every other show on TV promotes heterosexuality. PoisonedPigeon (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JohnC, please put your populist morality elsewhere. Above all else, Wikipedia is not a forum. Isn't there a Doctor Who forum bemoaning the gay agenda you can chime in on?~ZytheTalk to me! 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Name?

I'm sure this would have been picked up by now if he did, but I could swear that in Adam, Jack's father called him something (Sith or similar) in his vision in the sewer. So what did he say? U-Mos (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the dialogue is pretty much "Run, son, run!". The episode was constructed in a way that the characters real name was not revealed at any point in the flashbacks or hallucinations. Indisciplined (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that his real name was revealed in a more recent episode. Is this true? Type 40 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It seems rather unlikely that CJH's birth name will ever be revealed, let alone any time soon. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Doctor Who

Do we have any details about which new episodes Jack will be in? Type 40 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed, but it seems to be the unnamed episode 12 and episode 13 Journey's End. Digifiend (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stray backstory note

No longer feels relevant given the extensive information about how Jack joined Torchwood. I'd love to be able to find a source (Torchwood Magazine?) about Jack's various romances, so we could include some mention of Estelle, Jack's ex-wife, and his various other exes. But anyway,

Other episodes allude to Jack having been once had a wife,[1] and having been a traveling circus performer, and in some capacity as an special operative in the 1920s.[2]

Oh well.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack/Gwen vs Jack/Ianto

The following sentence appears in the "Television" section of this article: Jack and Ianto both begin to publicly recognise their relationship, despite Jack promising Gwen she is the reason he returned to Cardiff. I don't think this is sufficiently NPOV, since the exact nature of Jack's feelings towards Gwen and Ianto respectively is extremely ambiguous and one of the most controversial topics in the Torchwood fandom. While it is true that Jack told Gwen something along the lines of "The only thing that kept me fighting was the thought of coming back to you," in a previous scene he told Ianto "I came back for you," and then widened the statement to include the whole team. It is unclear if Jack's line to Gwen is meant to refer to only her, or to the Torchwood team in general. I am not trying to deny that Jack has feelings for Gwen, I am merely pointing out that it is never explicitly stated that Gwen is the sole reason Jack returned to Cardiff, or that he cares for her more than he cares for Ianto. Celsiana (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the line, feeling it was supported by the Eve Myles interview where she discusses the "temptation that Jack proves for Gwen." I tried to describe it neutrally, so as not to insinuate either that "Gwen is the sole reason Jack returned to Cardiff, or that he cares for her more than he cares for Ianto." A later line in the characteristics section even notes "Jack also appears to harbour romantic feelings for two of his employees, Gwen and Ianto, telling them both that they were the reason he returned to Cardiff, and asking Ianto on a date.[20] ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do keep in mind NOR, which means that the purpose of discussions like this, on talk pages, is not to decide what to put in the articles: it is to arrive at better and more practical ideas about what to search for, when you go off WP to gather reliable sources on what the consensus is or the major schools of thot are.
(And that's aside from the question of whether the actor's interview reflects
-- the director's consistent schema of the interactions, or
-- the director's instructions to that actor, designed to get her to come across as close as possible to what the director wants, visually and audibly, or
-- even the insult the actor wants to deliver to the director for presuming to tell her how to practice her craft.
Do you know the story about Olivier's scheme for delivering his off-stage scream, as Oedipus plucked his own eyes out? He wasn't imaging the character's state of mind at all, he was thinking about ermine trying to lick salt off of ice, and being killed after becoming immobilized when their tongues freezing to the ice.
Or recall the conflicting and shifting accounts by Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford, about what Deckard's state of mind was.
Start from the fact that drama depends on illusion.)
--Jerzy•t 07:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what evidence is there at all that Jack is talking to Gwen when he says "I came back for you," given that the camera angle immediately returns to Ianto, making no suggestion Jack was looking at Gwen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.35.47 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scene where Jack finds out Gwen got engaged.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titling

_ _ The navigational scheme of

  1. Jack Harkness explaining in lead that he is Captain JH,
  2. the section List of Torchwood minor characters#Captain Jack Harkness, and
  3. the Rdr Captain Jack Harkness ==> Jack Harkness

could probably not, without outright lying, be better designed to raise the barriers to getting acquainted with the two series.
_ _ If i weren't aware of the intensity of the fanbase involved, i'd probably have simply made the following changes:

  1. current Jack Harkness renamed to Jack Harkness (time lord)
  2. current Jack Harkness (disambiguation) renamed to Jack Harkness
  3. current Captain Jack Harkness (now a Rdr to the time lord) ==> 3-way Dab (two fic-chars, one episode)
  4. optionally, new Jack Harkness (RAF), with content #REDIRECT List of Torchwood minor characters#Captain Jack Harkness

I'm not questioning the earlier decision to give the time lord the title Jack Harkness (despite the apparent former pre-eminence of the footballer), but i'm arguing that the writers have thrown WP (if not the fans) what Yanks call "a real curve ball", and that the new circumstances make a new approach to page-naming worthwhile.
_ _ As it is, i'm just turning this analysis over to the most WP-savvy of the fans, and hoping you can make it clear to the rest why such a change will benefit the fans' efforts twd WP coverage worthy of the topics. If there are no admins among you, and you can reach a consensus, consider trying me first with a request for the housekeeping delete(s) that will surely be involved, since i may be the closest to being up to speed in advance.
--Jerzy•t 06:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a problem - Captain Jack is not a Time Lord, is he? (If he was, the Doctor wouldn't be the Last of the Time lords). As it stands, I think it is fine, concurring with WP:DISAMBIG - Weebiloobil (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that links to Jack Harkness (the lead character played by John Barrowman) dwarf in number the links to any of the other uses, I think it is appropriate to occupy its current position as the primary article. By extension, I think that Captain Jack Harkness is also appropriately redirected here. I've had a go at clarifying the dismabig notice on this article; the prior wording focused on "Captain Jack Harkess" and thus exluded the people looking for the footballer.--Trystan (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography and Age section additions

I disagree with the addition of the new biography and age sections to the article. The in-universe biography has been proposed above, and I think the general consensus still remains against it. It essentially restates what appears later in the article, only without context appropriate to describing fiction.

Trying to calculate his age is a fundamentally speculative enterprise. We know almost nothing about his life before he meets the Doctor, and there are significant gaps after that. Do we count the amount of time he spent 'dead'? Frozen? It all goes far too afield from simply describing how the show portrays him as a fictional character.--Trystan (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's covered to sufficient detail in Appearances, any further detail does not belong on Wikipedia in the first place. Speculating about Jack's age would also be pointless. We're going for FA here, not Good Article Review.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is all I have on Jack's age to date. A brief mention that he is over 2,000 years old may be in order. - LA @ 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Event Years
2 week time loop with John Hart 5
memories erased 2
from 1869* arrival from 200,100 to present (1869 AD to 2008 AD) 139
Series 1 1
with Doctor during the Master incident 1
Series 2 1
Buried alive (27 AD to 1901 AD) 1874
Cryostasis (1901 AD to 2008 AD) 107
Total 2130
  • 1869 is when the Doctor and Rose were in Cardiff with Dickens.
There is Category:Fictional centenarians in place, but I wouldn't know where to find a decent source to discuss this. There's no Paul Cornell-penned academic guides to Torchwood yet.~ZytheTalk to me! 09:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Portrayed by" in infobox

Do we want to include the very brief flashback portrayal by Jack Montgomery in the infobox? It's really a minor footnote, and the infobox should be focused on summarizing key facts.--Trystan (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, John Barrowman plays Jack. The child actor should be noted in the article, certainly, but it's not significant enough for the infobox. Maybe include an editors note as well to deter good faith edits putting the info back in?  Paul  730 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem removing it.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race?

So it seems this guy is human, not a Timelord? --arny (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Jack is human. Although, Rose did inadvertantly make him nigh-immortal. DonQuixote (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What made you think he might be a timelord? Jasca Ducato (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps his powers and frequent time travels... obviously I didn't get the story right. --arny (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

Someone needs to downsize this article. I couldn't even read it, it was jam-packed in a bad way!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.73.141 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Amadeus, which parts would you like us to remove? It's long-ish, but there is a lot to cover with this character, given the amount of critical attention he has received. I think the article is quite concise, and clearly organized. If you have any more specific suggestions for improvement, they are most welcome.--Trystan (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why 1869?

The article doesn't explain why he used the vortex manipulator to return there and not to our present (which was what he wanted). Is it on purpose or just because it's hard to pinpoint the vortex manipulator (if it's the latter, he could have landed in the future and miss the Doctor)? -62.219.97.10 (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the specific episode or wording, but I have a recollection to him having explained that he'd intended to go back in time but "overshot" his destination and ended up even further back than he'd aimed for. Perhaps someone else can remember more specifics or re-watch the end of season 3 to see if it was in one of those episodes. --Icarus (Hi!) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia. Right after they reach the end of the universe, Jack says he over shot it. I just watched that episode before coming here!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.188.112 (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His former Chula Spacecraft

According to List of Doctor Who vehicles#Chula Spacecraft, it is a time machine ship and not just a space ship. I mean, the whole point was that he used it to travel to the past, wasn't it? -62.219.97.10 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the page

How come this fictional character gets preference over the name "Jack Harkness", while the real life Jack Harkness, is regulated to a disambiguation? Also, the Torchwood episode, "Captain Jack Harkness" should not be disambiguated ("Torchwood episode"). No other page on Wikipedia shares that title, thus the redirect to this article should be removed and the episode page should be moved to the unambiguated title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the same reason that James T. Kirk the character is given preference over James T. Kirk the real person...or James Bond the character over James Bond the ornithologist. As to why Captain Jack Harness the episode is disambiguated, there's a Captain Jack Harkness which redirects to this page. DonQuixote (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James T. Kirk and James Bond have been around a hell of a lot longer to gain a more universal recognition than Jack Harkness. That being said, I would still question what evidence there is that statistically someone is going to search more for those names over the real life people.
I know there is a redirect here, hence why I said that it should be removed and the episode page should be moved there. That is not how redirects work. What should have been done is that the episode (if it is notable at all...I don't know, I didn't look at it) should have been given that title in the first place, with a link at the top saying, "This is the page on the Torchwood episode, for other uses see Jack Harkness (disambiguation)".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stats say that the page for the fictional character was viewed 29,490 times in September, while the footballer was viewed 88 times. Sounds like a primary topic to me.
The redirect is less clear-cut, but I still think that the current situation is correct. The character is very widely known as Captain Jack or Captain Jack Harkness, and I think it's more likely that someone who typed "Captain Jack Harkness" into the search box would be looking for the character than the episode. Also, WP:TV-NC says, "Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode"." It doesn't say "Where an episode title is the same as the article for a character or object from the series..." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why you put a link at the top of the episode page telling the reader that if they are looking for the character he's on another page. You cannot jump straight to "Torchwood episode" when there are no other pages that have the name "Captain Jack Harkness", that isn't how naming conventions work. The episode is the only Wikipedia topic with that name. Otherwise, why wouldn't the title of this page be "Captain Jack Harkness"? Probably the same reason why "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" does not redirect to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the arguments on both sides of that one. Probably best to put it through WP:RM.
You do agree that the stats are fairly conclusive that the character is the primary topic, though? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the Jack Harkness primary topic argument. You cannot compete with 88 hits. As for the Torchwood episode. If there is agreement here, we don't need RM. A speedy deletion of the redirect page (removing the redirect itself won't work, the coding is still there), and then simply moving the episode article over is all that is needed. WP:RM can take a week (or weeks...given how many articles I see backlogged on that page right now). We can spend a fraction of that time determining if the page should be moved, and then just doing it ourselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from more editors before we delete the redirect. If there's an actual consensus, I won't stand in the way, but I think that the guideline can be read either way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like more opinions as well, but the guideline is for when articles share the same title. This page does not share that title. Either this page is "Captain Jack Harkness", or it isn't and the "Captain Jack Harkness" should go to an article that has that title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a bit of a mess. I'd like to see Jack Harkness (the caracter) stay here, and the episode moved to Captain Jack Harkness, both with proper DABs at the top. — Edokter • Talk • 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. DonQuixote (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see above, I was in favour of keeping the Captain Jack Harkness redirect to this page, but I think now it does probably make more sense to move the article there. It would, if nothing else, allow us to simplify our tortuously worded disambig notice on this page.
We'll have to clean up some links, since there are a few dozen pages which link to Captain Jack Harkness which will need to be updated to point directly here.--Trystan (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Looks like a consensus to me — if people want, I can take care of this later tonight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I've checked all the links that were pointing towards Captain Jack Harkness, and changed all the ones that were for the character to point to Jack Harkness instead. I've also moved the episode to Captain Jack Harkness, and fixed a double redirect. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work!  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background Changes

I noticed that information that I added (then was removed, then added, then removed again) was taken down. The basic statement about it, I could understand. There was a large amount of information, some of it a bit detailed. The lack of information on Trace Memory altogether is still disconcerting to me as there is so much revealed in there.

Also, the change of terminology about Jack being a freelance agent versus an uncontracted agent was less about the term freelance and more about the fact that it says that he was 'contracted as a freelance agent.' I feel that there is a large difference between the two.

I'd like at least some of this to be reconsidered for being either re-posted completely or paraphrased and re-posted. Estel (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit the main reason I reverted you was because you undid Zythe without an edit summary, and, having collaborated with him on articles before, I trust his judgement more than yours. (Sorry, just being honest.) I'm not bothered about the freelance/uncontracted debate, but I do agree with the removal of trivial plot details. We're trying to keep plot info brief and accessible, and don't need to hear every trivial detail of Jack's backstory. We should, however, summarise the general plot of Trace Memory if it's relevant to Jack.  Paul  730 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest as well, then. I don't often do work on wikipedia, but Jack Harkness is a subject I know a fair deal about. I got carried away with the details, I'll admit. I feel strongly that the change to uncontracted is important, including that it is on the show as such (briefly as it is). Also, the section on Twilight Streets contains similar content that should be equally considered. If the literary section is going to be as brief as you seem to want it to be, then perhaps that should be at least reformatted as well. I was more than a bit annoyed that everything I have ever added to wikipedia has been undone or deleted, and should have come here first, I've just never posted to a talk page before.
I would like to help out on this article and so I want to see all parties involved in agreement. Thanks guys, and sorry again! Estel (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I reverted your edits without leaving you a talk page message to explain why I did it. I was going over them, and given when Trace Memory was released (pre-"Fragments") it would make sense to add some brief summary of it along with the mention of the relevant bits from Twilight Streets. The reason that novel is mentioned is only because it infers Jack was working with Torchwood for a long time before we met him in "Everything Changes" and because it clarifies the "Boom Town" paradox.
It does need reworking a bit, agreed. I'll explain why it currently looks that way. To give a 'real world' perspective of the novels, as one would with a TV series, I've grouped them in the waves they were released and with the release dates they came with. However, the problem with that is each novel has its own writer, plot, etc and therefore it takes up a lot of room if we are to acknowledge them. Perhaps a better way would be to link to List of Torchwood novels and audio books and describe when each set were released and then any relevant information from particular novels in that set, without linking them all and naming each author.
Because Jack appears in lots of kinds of literature (comics, novels, internet), I've felt I've had to put relevent information to characterisation with the original mention of the medium. However, with the Ianto Jones article it has been laid out so that a paragraph which discusses how these novels have leant to Ianto's characterisation comes later and draws from both the novels and comic books. If you want, I've got a Torchwood rewrites section in my userspace if you'd like to help work on bettering the articles without disrupting the main article too much before we're done (as I often find I have to keep changing what I've written).~ZytheTalk to me! 14:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Paul and Estel, how would you feel about a more detailed backstory paragraph in the "Development" section? One large paragraph to more overtly to discuss the slow build for the audience of how Jack's development occurred. I may even have an academic article which discusses how how "Utopia" in contrast to the first season of Torchwood reflects differing audience expectations for character development.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds okay so long as it doesn't devolve into in-universe trivia. It shouldn't read like a "Backstory" biography, but then you already know that. :) As for the novels' summarisation, I'm wondering if we need to mention the authors... we don't mention the episode writers, do we? Any author info should already be in the citation, and on the novel's article/list. It would probably be a more productive use of space to focus on Jack's development in the novel rather than who wrote it... a little plot won't hurt so long as it is brief and relevant to the character.  Paul  730 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would be better to wait until academic sources / commentaries describe character development in a relevant way, rather than trying to summarize it in an IU way.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the uniform matters

There have been a series of stupid reversions over the issue of Jack's uniform on his first appearance. The original edit - clarifying that he was wearing a Squadron Leader's uniform, not a Group Captain's uniform - corrected the facts of the page. Uniforms for the RAF are clearly established and attested to in numerous secondary sources; looking up this information is no more "original research" than the rest of wikipedia, and substantially less original research than every single article on every television show in the entirety of wikipedia.

If the editors come to a consensus that the uniform is not important, that is fine, it should be left out of the article. But it is not fine to put in a factually incorrect statement. As for the difference between the uniforms is insufficient enough to be important - a group captain of that era had an entirely different rank and function from a squadron leader, and that is history, as opposed to fiction. Group Captains didn't even actively fly, and were usually much older than Squadron leaders. (For the sake of the plot, they should have established the character clearly as a Squadron Leader, not a Captain, but I suppose it just didn't have the same nice alliteration with JaCK HarKness). - *jb (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I would hesitate to call the above noted revisions 'stupid', I am forced to agree with the general thrust of *jb's argument. In my view, there are two logical positions which one can adopt on this matter: either a) the rank insignia on Captain Jack's costume is irrelevant, in which case it should be omitted entirely or b) it is relevant, in which case it should be described accurately. In neither case should the original version be allowed to stand as it not only lacks secondary sourcing but was, in fact, made up by some Wikipedia writer out of thin air.
As to the prohibition on original research, I do understand and appreciate this rule, however I fail to see its relevance to this discussion. The article on No Original Research says, and I quote, 'In short, stick to the sources.' In this case, there are hundreds of photographs, all over the web, which clearly show Jack's rank insignia in the episodes in question (one of which I linked to in my original revision). If an episode of Doctor Who is not to be considered a reliable source as to what happened on Doctor Who, then what is a reliable source on this subject? Or do you, perhaps, mean that the RAF itself is a subject of such obscurity that only an unsourcable expert at the cutting edge of military science would know the difference between a Sqn Ldr and a Gp Cap? I mean I'm sure you're not making this argument, so let's leave it at that. Dreadnought1906 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our place to quibble about uniforms and ranks, even if it is wrong. If there was an interview or commentary where one of the shows' makers discussed the difference, we would have a reason to mention it, something which proved the issue has been acknowledged elsewhere and is notable. If we are the only ones to report on it, then that is quite literally original research. I assumed (since the article is otherwise well-sourced) that the Group Captain sentence had a secondary source, but it didn't and I agree it shouldn't be there. It's a TV show and they probably just picked a rank and uniform they thought sounded/looked cool and sexy without putting much thought into it. There's no need to mention it at all.  Paul  730 22:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, in this instance, the detail in question is very minor and the article is probably not at all hurt by its redaction. On the the general principle of primary sources, however, the No Original Research article makes it clear that primary sources are an acceptable basis for assertions in Wikipedia, as long as those primary sources are generally available for examination by other editors. Indeed, if primary sources were unacceptable, you would not be able to cite anything from commentaries or interviews, as you suggest, as these are both types of primary sources. In fact, the original (and erroneous) statement that Jack was wearing a Gp Cap uniform in his first two appearances was cited to the TV episodes in question. This is a good example of how primary sources can be checked for accuracy by other Wikipedians; I saw the same episodes and was able to spot that there had been an error. If you still feel that TV episodes should not be used as a primary source by Wikipedia, then by all means put forward an argument for their exclusion. You might want to examine, if you choose to do so, footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 in this article. All are references to episodes of Doctor Who or Torchwood, used as primary sources for the article on Jack Harkness. Dreadnought1906 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, quibbling about uniforms is about as productive as quibbling about TARDISes -- the events of the programme are fictitious and in no way have to correspond one-to-one to our own world. So unless a secondary source mentions it, it's not notable. DonQuixote (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the differences are not important unless some third-party sources start discussing the differences of the uniform (in which case, it would probably be more appropriate for the TV series' page than for Jack's page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Captain" is a Time Agent rank (cf Capt John)? Or an honorific due to those who command a space/timeship (cf Picard et al)? Or his legend recently transferred from the Army or Royal Navy (where he was ranked Capt) to the RAF? ✝DBD 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watching The Doctor Dances, the Doctor guesses (and, let's be honest, he's very clever) that Jack isn't a real Captain, or, if he was, is now defrocked. Jack responds that he quit ("no-one takes my frock") – which I would say strongly implies he held rank as a Captain prior to leaving the Time Agency ✝DBD 13:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murderer category

Is it really appropriate to put Jack in the category of fictional murderers? It doesn't appear to fit the guidelines of Wikipedia:CAT. It's not a very notable characteristic of him that he killed the guy who killed Owen, basically out of revenge. His alleged murders are barely mentioned in the article, failing the guideline on how the subject should be discussed at length in the article before the category is added. As a Torchwood leader, doesn't he probably have a liscence to kill anyway? -- AvatarMN (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Categories are usually for characters whose primary characteristic is described by said category. Jack isn't a murderer per se, he's an agent character who has committed murder in the line of duty. Think James Bond, or arguably the Doctor DonQuixote (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category has a startling number of unuseful entries. People use categories to browse related articles, there are so many characters listed who murdered or even arguably murdered only once, and in a way that didn't much change them or the story. This cat probably wouldn't be much use to one desiring to read articles about fictional murderers as it stands now. -- AvatarMN (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships

I was wondering if it might be an idea to create a section just for Relationships for Jack, and then list the name of each individual character and have a write up underneath. You could have the Doctor, Estelle, Captain John Hart, Gwen Cooper and Ianto Jones, some of which there are already resources being quoted in the article. --Clarrisani (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A relationships section would be totally fine given the fact we have quite a bit of information specific to that. However, prose is preferable to listing things in bullet points. Something similar to Clark Kent (Smallville)#Relationships or the other Smallville character articles.  Paul  730 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that makes this article so good compared to other fictitious character articles is that it is written as a real article, with things mentioned in the most appropriate place with citations showing they are significant. I think a relationship section would either useless duplicate information, or would be less readable by moving all the relahip info into a disonnected section. It is also likely to become a cruft-list of all his insignifican encounters eg. Spike_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer) is in prose, but goes into great detail about every interaction he had with every character in the show. Too much information! Better as it is imo.Yobmod (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article DID have something like that ages ago, when it was a terrible fannish thing. The focus since became on portrayals, actor opinion, critical interpretation and production team intentions. This is much more suited to Wikipedia purposes. The only problems with devoting an entire subsection to relationships might be these: that they are entirely summarised, and more detail would require in-universe story explanations which are supposed to be scarce. The other would be that Jack's relationships are so tied to the critical attention paid to the character's unique qualities that it would be forcing a divide between "Jack loves the other Jack" (in-universe, supposes the reader should ask 'So what?') and "Critics note Jack can uniquely portray modern attitudes to same-sex sexuality in period settings because he is a time traveller", when the two thoughts work best in conjunction.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are citing Clark as an example, or any of the Smallville related pages, it would be good to note (given Yobmod's and Zythe's points) is that those sections in the Smallville articles are comprised entirely of reliably sourced analysis of those relationship. It isn't a place where they just list everyone someone has had a relationship with, but where crew members and other professionals give their opinions on those relationships. So, it's entirely "real world", and I make pains to keep unnecessary in-universe info out of there. The in-universe aspect of it should already be covered in the plot description section, so you shouldn't have to repeat yourselves in a "Relationship" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack's a whore though, so there's going to be fans wanting us to mention Soldier #3 and all the other characters he's shagged over the years. ;) Which is what the old version of the article actually did. I in no way support something similar to the Spike page, but a relationships subsection might be a nice way to break up the every-growing Development section. Zythe, it all falls under Characterisation anyway so we wouldn't have to divide anything. We actually have about two paragraphs of all-relationship info that could probably be made into a subsection quite neatly by just sticking a title over it.  Paul  730 23:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle it to something along the lines of "Relationship analysis" or whatever...anything so that it is clearer that the only thing wanted is reliably sourced, real world content.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved things around so now we have a relationships section. Zythe, Yobmod, what do you think? "Relationships" should suffice as a title, if anyone starts to add the cruft we can just remove it.  Paul  730 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine for now. Maybe some editor's notes to explain that it is not an exhaustive list of the character's relationships? If we need to, anyway. Should Estelle Cole be mentioned perhaps in the Torchwood Season One paragraph, maybe, as that was a sort of 'revelation' when it originally aired? I wouldn't know how to shoehorn it in.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted, we received in influx of plot info to the relationships section. Unless commented on by a source (like a writer or critic, etc) we shouldn't mention every incident or line related to Jack's love life and feelings. I also removed the following info: "Although Eve Myles has since contradicted this statement from early in season one, to now state that Gwen has only "affection" for Jack and that she "absolutely adores" and "loves" Rhys from the "tip of her toes to the top of her hair.". Not sure it meets WP:RS as it cites "Q&A Session with Eve Myles and Kai Owen at The Rift Convention, Porchester Hall London, Saturday April 26 2008". Clearly Eve Myles is a reliable source, but if her words aren't published somewhere can we use them?  Paul  730 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability states "For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." Now as has been ascertained that SJW did self publish his book and his information is included in here, the information from Eve Myles was reported by many on their own blogs, so it was not one person making up that line but many who attended and reported it. A blog can be considered in the same lines as a self published book. Therefore if SJW is included then the quote from Eve should also be included. The plot points that are currently mentioned are not a correct reflection. There was a difference between what was said to one character and what was said to another and if that has to stay in then it needs to be clarified in the correct context. As it stands, what is in the article is incorrect in what happened in the show when you look at the direct quotes from the characters. Jack's insecurity about himself is valid for an understanding of his character and where he stands in respect to relationships and being 'out of time'. The To The Last Man discussion was valid in that respect and should be included. I note that earlier you claim that Jack is a "whore" and yet this is not backed up within the show but your edits seem to reflect any changes that show that Jack can and does choose to be in committed relationships. Is that not showing your own bias? Nikki4noo (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SJW is a published author (he has published far more books than just this one being used, and ones that were not published by Telos). Personal blogs are the same as books, even ones that are published by someone who co-owns the publishing house. As a matter of fact, the key term in that is Telos is a "Publishing House". They publish books. The fact that they published a book by one of their co-owners (who already has a history of authored texts) is not the same as someone publishing some random blogger's opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he is a published author, but that book comes under the clarification as a self-published work according to wiki policy. I do agree that Telos is a publishing house and they publish books, most people who can pay to have their own works published do so through publishing houses... According to wiki policy it is still a self published book, a persons history is not taken into account in respect to the work. There can be a perceived bias by the editors of the book being mindful that they are editing the work of their employer. Wiki states that a self published book can be quoted, as has been done here, and so can some "random blogger's opinion" according to that same policy. Nikki4noo (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)SJW's book is a published source. The fact he apparently works for the publishing company makes it questionable but still usable, and might I add it is a technicality people who disagree with Walker are exploiting as a scapegoat against his opinions. A published book it not the same as some random fan's blog. If Eve Myles mentioned it on her own blog, I might be okay with using it but unless we have some kind of published evidence of her statement I don't think we can use it? (I'd appreciate more opinions on this from those savvy with Wiki-policy).

There's already a little too much plot info in this article, and I by that I mean random chunks of plot with no context. Stuff like "Torchwood Series Two sees Jack promise both Gwen and Ianto that they were the reason he returned to Cardiff" should probably be removed unless we can find some kind of commentary on them. We certainly shouldn't add to that by saying things like "Jack says to Gwen..." "Ianto says to Jack..." etc, etc. By doing that we open up a can of worms and we'll have dozens of fans adding what they think are important romantic moments. Nikki, the "whore" comment was a joke. I merely meant that Jack has more notches on his bedpost than Clark Kent, whose relationship section was being used as an example to follow. Believe me, I have no problem with discussing Jack's relationships, comitted or otherwise, I just think we should rely on sources and not our own opinions like in the Spike article. :P  Paul  730 02:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, the fact that he owns the company means that his book needs to be considered as a self-published work. He does not "apparently work" for the publishing company, it explicitly states that he co-owns it on the company's website. This was cleared up in the Ianto discussion I believe. As such his book under wiki policy means that it is a "self-published" work. Now if he had the book published by another company that would clear up the matter, but it was by the company that he co-owns. It was more than one random person reporting on the Eve quote on their blogs, and I do believe there was a video of the Q&A in circulation but I have not been able to find it at the moment.

I agree, take out the information about Jack returning for both of them if you want less plot information, as it is incorrect in line with the show. If you wish to have less plot points but leave that line in, then it needs to be re-worded to reflect what was actually said. Jack has been alive for a long time, so yes he has had more relationships that someone who has only been alive. It was a very poor choice of words from you and might have been a joke, but it gives the impression that you have a view of Jack that does not jive with the actual character. Both JG and JB at Comic*Con last year stated that Jack does not get a lot of "action". Nikki4noo (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If other people are reporting on their personal blogs of what Eve says, and there is no other source reporting what she says, then it's all hearsay. The problem is, even if you have 20 people reporting the same thing, you cannot guarantee that they aren't all reporting it because they read it on each other's blogs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki policy states that we can use what was on the blogs, just as you can use self-published information. I agree that it can be considered heresay, but the policy says that it can be included. Nikki4noo (talk)
I don't believe that that is what the policy is stating, but you are free to actually consult that talk page and ask for their input on the subject.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V states that the blogs to be avoided are "personal and group blogs. Some newspapers and other periodicals host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the organization's full editorial control." So no, I don't think fan blogs would be usable in any circumstances. Oh, and I apologise if you found the whore comment offensive, but John Barrowman himself admits that Jack just "sleeps around" so I think you're making a mountain out a molehill tbh.  Paul  730 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, if I cite what is said at a Q&A session or panel at a convention, and can provide a link to video of the event, would it be counted? Just wondering for future. --Clarrisani (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. If it's from YouTube, or some other public uploading site then you cannot. Most of that stuff is illegally uploaded, and YouTube doens't remove it unless someone comes to them directly and tells them to (usually they don't realize it is up there). Secondly, because the uploader to such work could delete it themselves and we'd lose the source, it makes YouTube a difficult and unreliable source to use. Text that is published and deleted can be found again through the internet archives, but videos have to still be uploaded for us to view them. That's why it is best to always find a reliable transcript of video interviews, or at least hope to find a reliable website that publishes the video that you know won't necessarily take the video down (something like a major news agency, or something).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking so much if we could link to the YouTube video more than if cite the convention itself and link to the video here on the Talk page to prove that the comment was in fact made (and most of us hardcore Torchwood fans have the videos saved anyway - I get mine from another member of the John Barrowman fan club), would it prove that the primary source does in fact exist? --Clarrisani (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding you right, you want to cite the "conversation" itself on the article page, but link to the YouTube videon on the talk page four our benefit? That wouldn't fly in any type of formal review. You need an actual published sourced that has the interview. Now, if that source is reliable and has a video clip as well...great. If that source is YouTube, then you cannot use it. There must be a reliable source that we can point any editor to, so that they can verify the information. If the only reliable source is a YouTube video, then it cannot be used. I don't know what the video is, but if it's some formal interview, I'm sure there is someone out there that has commented on the actual interview.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand right, it wasn't a formal interview so much as the actress talking at a convention, which a bunch of fans have recorded themselves.  Paul  730 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's at a convention, then I really do have to think that some reporter jotted all this down and reported on it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in my experience most of the conventions do not have a reporter (or at least one that reports the event). I was think more along the lines of citing the source as the actor/director/writer, then listing the convention itself. --Clarrisani (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs to be published. Otherwise it is hearsay. How can we verify that what you (or anyone) is saying is true? If the video to the convention is ever removed then we wouldn't be able to verify said statements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul 730 , I am aware that you have put in a lot of work to the Torchwood articles and I have been looking back over the history of the pages. Please be careful not to assume ownership of these pages and be more open to the ideas and feedback of other editors, even if you do not agree with all their suggestions. --121.219.8.170 (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, that doesn't mean that he must concede to others either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but currently he is rejecting the suggestions without question and blocking the views of others because he does not agree with them. This is also the case with a couple of other members of this discussion, but Paul 730 seems to be doing so because he feels he knows what is best for the article and no one else can suggest otherwise. I am suggesting he discuss more openly the possible other interpretations of various references and topics seen here instead of simply relying on his own opinion and views about what is right. Also, if the other editors do not concede, there will be a dispute and it would best for compromise to be reached on behalf of both parties, else a third party will need to be involved to settle it. --121.219.8.170 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that he is doing that at all, given that he has taken quite a bit of what Clarrisani has said into consideration (the user who initiated this discussion) and actually made amendments to the article to compromise on the issue. Even Clarrisani agreed with some of the changes...so exactly where are you getting this "blocking the views of others"? He clearly has demonstrated actions to the contrary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion and the relationships section I would say there is far to much speculation going on here for a Wikipedia article. I know Jack's sexuality and love life effect his character greatly, but if a section on these romances cannot be written without drawing conclusions from unauthorized sources, then I think a better route would be a few quick sentences in his general history page. Meta belongs on forums and LiveJournal, not Wikipedia. It all might have good basis in canon, but not enough to be a valid part of this article. As someone mentioned above, this is one of the most controversial topics in the TW fandom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollapopzalla (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell T Davies image

I thought I'd bring it up here before removing it. IMO it's a horribly obvious attempt to shoehorn in a free image to brighten up the article, when in fact the image offers very little commentary to this article. If people want to know what RTD looks like, they can check his page. Just cause it's free doesn't mean we should use it.  Paul  730 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that that big image I saw when I was tweaking the Jack/Ianto thing? If so, then I have to agree. Just because he conceived the character doesn't necessarily mean we need an image of him. If it was some image of him actually conceiving the character at that moment, then it would probably hold enough connection to warrant inclusion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and just remove it.  Paul  730 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quite liked the image. It seems quite natural to me when discussing fiction to show the creator, particularly when he is being quoted.--Trystan (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you show him on everything he's ever created? It is kind of redundant to see his same mug on every character that he's ever created. It seemed more to me like it was just there to take up space. With the quote boxes there, I don't feel like there is just a bombardment of text with no breather.
Not everything, but on a character as prominent as Jack, where the creative process is a central part of the article, I think its a good fit. The text boxes help, but the article is still quite wall-of-textish.--Trystan (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the image is in a section that discusses Davies creating the character or quotes him, i think it is ok. Not great, but as a free image in a fiction article, i don't think it harms it either. Neutral about adding it back or removing it.Yobmod (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi i love that your in doctor who and that is so cool that you cant die i wish i was in doctor who and i want to meet you and david tennant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.11.185.68 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jack Harkness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I fixed several dead links but there were two that I couldn't fix. I tagged them, please try to fix them or replace them with new sources. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accent

Any explanation for why he speaks with an apparent American accent on a British show? Chuthya (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess it's because it's the actor's own accent. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it has no place on the article, assumedly because the Boeshane Peninsula is a North American colony in the future. But why couldn't there be an American-accented character in a British show, simply because they're American? Well, excusing the terrible example of Demons.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer is "because the character is American." --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The character isn't American, he's from the Boeshane Peninsula - but I don't see a need to explain it, we don't explain the accents of the Doctor or other off-worlders... do we? Well... I guess there was the whole thing about "Lots of planets have a North". PoisonedPigeon (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the accent is only an issue for Americans, who appear to be unable to handle having non-Americans as leading characters in their TV shows [many of whom are Brits forced to adopt an American accent for the role].
213.206.7.50 (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

Put in the characters history storywise or this will continue to fail, no one cares about the other crap, put in his history that's why these are made mostly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.23.212 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Per our Manual of Style about fiction, articles should not be written from an in-universe perspective. Writing about fictional characters in a biographical sense as though they were real people is inaccurate and confusing for readers unfamilar with the material. If you would like to read Captain Jack's biography, feel free to do so at the Doctor Who Wiki. You may also want to try being less rude and demanding.  Paul  730 23:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lead and television appearances problems

As I said on the FAC page, I had issues with the quality of the prose in the lead and first section, but much of the prose issues disappear later. It appears to be a typical problem of summarizing a complicated plot. I've tweaked them both, and offer them here for your assessment:

Captain Jack Harkness is a fictional character in Doctor Who and its 2006 spin-off series, Torchwood . He first appears in the 2005 Doctor Who episode "The Empty Child" and reappears in the remaining episodes of the 2005 series as a companion of the ninth incarnation of the Doctor. Captain Jack returns in the 2007 series of Doctor Who, reuniting with the tenth incarnation of the Doctor, and again for the 2008 series. He becomes a central character in the adult themed Torchwood. His character is played by the Scots actor John Barrowman.

Jack is a time traveller and con man from the 51st century. In contrast to the Doctor, he is a man of action, more willing to apply a hands-on, rather than a cerebral, solution to a problem. In the 2005 Doctor Who series finale, Jack becomes immortal. He eventually becomes the leader of Torchwood, an organisation dedicated to collecting and understanding alien technology. An ambiguous backstory is gradually revealed in the course of both series, adding another layer of complexity to the character.

A bisexual, Jack is the first openly non-heterosexual character of the televised Doctor Who and Jack Harness’ popularity amongst multiple demographics influences the development of Torchwood. As an ongoing depiction of bisexuality in mainstream British television, the character has become a role model for young gay and bisexual people in the UK, rapidly increasing John Barrowman’s fame. Captain Jack Harness is featured in the pages of various Doctor Who and Torchwood books, as well as in action figures created in Barrowman’s likeness.

Television

Jack Harkness first appears in two 2005 Doctor Who episodes "The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances" when he rescues Rose (Billie Piper), a companion of the Ninth Doctor (Christopher Eccleston), during the Blitz. Although posing as an American volunteer in the Royal Air Force, Jack actually is a former "Time Agent" from the 51st century. A con man, he has unwittingly released a plague on 20th century London. After the Doctor cures the plague, Jack redeems himself by taking an unexploded bomb into his ship; the Doctor and Rose rescue him moments before his ship explodes.[1][2] He subsequently remains on the TARDIS with them. During their travels,[3][4][5] Jack matures into a more heroic and complex character,[6] and in his final 2005 appearance, he dies fighting the Daleks. While suffused with the power of the time vortex, Rose destroys the Daleks, saves the Doctor, and resurrects Jack.

The character returns in 2006 in the spin-off series Torchwood. Literally a changed man,[8] Jack has became immortal after his resurrection. He has spent years on Earth waiting for the Doctor, who he hopes will explain his immortality. In the meantime, he has assembled a team, the Cardiff-based Torchwood Three, to fight alien threats. As the series opens, Jack recruits policewoman Gwen Cooper (Eve Myles) to his team of scientists, to give them more heart and compassion;[9] there are hints of romantic feelings between the two,[10] but Gwen has a fiancé and Jack enters a sexual relationship with the team’s general factotum Ianto Jones (Gareth David-Lloyd).[11] Over the course of the season, his colleagues discover that he cannot die; [12] they learn that "Jack Harkness" is an alias taken from a deceased Second World War airman;[13] that Jack was once a prisoner of war;[13] and, finally, as an interrogator, he tortured prisoners.[14] The episode "Small Worlds" introduces Jack's wartime lover Estelle Cole (Eve Pearce), as an old woman; she highlights the tragedy of Jack’s dilemma of immortality and lays the ground work for future complications.[15] In the Torchwood Series One finale "End of Days",[16] Jack “crosses over” to the 2007 Doctor Who episode "Utopia", where he meets the Tenth Doctor (David Tennant) and his companion Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman). By the Doctor Who finale, having spent a year in an alternate timeline, Jack opts to return to his team in Cardiff. Before leaving Martha and the Doctor, Jack speculates about his immortality and reminiscences about a nickname from his youth on the Boeshane Peninsula, suggesting that he may one day become the mysterious "Face of Boe" (a recurring Doctor Who series character voiced by Struan Rodger).[18][19]

In 2008, as Torchwood Series Two begin, Jack finds his teammates have continued the work without him.[20][21] They are also more insistent to learn of his past, especially after meeting his former partner, the unscrupulous Captain John Hart (James Marsters).[22] The episode "Adam" explores Jack's childhood in the Boeshane Peninsula, revealing through flashbacks how his father (Demetri Goritsas) died and young Jack (Jack Montgomery) lost his younger brother Gray (Ethan Brooke) during an alien invasion.[23] The series' penultimate episode, "Fragments", depicts Jack's capture by Torchwood in the late 19th century. Initially a prisoner, he is coerced into becoming a freelance agent for the organisation, and eventually becomes the leader of Torchwood Three at midnight on 1 January 2000.[24] The series finale features the return of Captain John and Jack's brother Gray (Lachlan Nieboer), who, after a lifetime of torture by aliens, wants revenge on Jack. Gray kills his teammates Toshiko (Naoko Mori) and Owen (Burn Gorman).[25] Jack eventually places Gray in cryogenic stasis, and repairs his friendship with Captain John. In two-part crossover finale of the 2008 Doctor Who series, "The Stolen Earth", the Doctor summons Jack, Martha and a former companion Sarah Jane Smith (Elisabeth Sladen) to face Davros (Julian Bleach), creator of the evil Daleks.[26] Jack parts from the Doctor once again, having helped save the universe from destruction.[27]

The five-part Children of Earth[28][29] (Torchwood (2009)) explores the relationship of humans and their children. The mysterious 456 announces it is coming to earth. Civil servant John Frobisher (Peter Capaldi) inexplicably orders the destruction of Torchwood.[30] Jack is killed in an explosion, but painfully reconstitutes from an incomplete pile of body parts; Gwen and Ianto escape and later rescue Jack from a concrete grave; Jack’s daughter, Alice (Lucy Cohu) and his grandson Steven (Bear McCausland) are kidnapped by the assassins.[31] The 456 demand ten percent of the world's children. Flashbacks reveal Jack's involvement in the surrender of twelve children to the 456 in 1965.[32] In response to the present threat, Jack and Ianto refuse to give up any children. The 456 releases a virus; Ianto dies in Jack's arms.[33] To create the signal that will destroy the 456, Jack sacrifices Steven. Six months later, having lost his lover, his grandson, and his daughter, he bids farewell to Gwen, and is transported in a light beam to an alien ship, leaving Earth for parts unknown.[34] Jack is expected to appear in an unknown capacity in the 2009 Christmas specials of Doctor Who, which will also mark the exit of the Tenth Doctor.[35]

I don't think you should use the phrase: beamed up.... tooo trekky, and they might object (one doesn't know). I'd also question whether you need all the names of the actors, or if it might not be a list somewhere, rather than cluttering your text. I'll leave that to you, but something to think about...Notice also that I've regularised the verb tense. The way you had it, explained it to the other reviewer -- was too confusing. Pick a tense, and stick with it. Also, needs a BRIEF explanation of why 1 January 2000. Canary Wharf? Was it originally 13 children and one escaped? Or was it 12 and one escaped (making it 11). Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too tired to go through it completely, so I'll comment on your notes. First off, "too trekky" isn't an issue. It's just general parlance; both teleport and transmat are frequently used in-character to describe specific technologies being used, but in this case it is the simple fact that when writing about the event it makes much more sense than any other wording that doesn't rely on original research. The issue of 2000 can either be clarified to say that is when the previous leader murdered the old team before committing suicide, but I can't think of a way to do that without cluttering it up. Is that really necessary to be clarified right there? I assume that is why you mentioned Canary Warf, as a guess to the cause, though that would be incorrect. And unless I'm mistaken, it was 12 with 1 running off. Would take too much time to find a source to verify, and checking the episode is too much hassle right now for some original research. :P --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prose edit is underway at User:Zythe/Jack_Harkness to keep the main page stable. I am going through your version and I find a lot of the changes are personal taste, and perhaps confusing. I'm developing a happy medium.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of name

Has no reliable source discussed a possible connexion with Frank Richards' character Captain Jack Harkaway, mentioned in The Time Robber? Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. It might well be a coincidence.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)/[reply]
I've seen some fans/forums/blogs mention it, but that's it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the name Harkness is a reference to the nanny employed by Reed Richards [the stretchey Mr Fantastic of the Fantastic Four], whose name is Agatha Harkness and a Witch [i think].
213.206.7.50 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible origin of name

There is a Captain Jack Harkness in an issue of Thrilling Wonder Stories (1949 Vol.35 #1), a sci-fi pulp fiction magazine. He appears in the novelette by Wallace West entitled, "The Lure of Polaris". He travels from planet to planet instantaneously via a teleportation machine.

Verifiability Issue

Stephen James Walker is used as a source in this article, yet he is a known [of Telos Publishing] as stated on the website: "Stephen James Walker is one of the directors and co-owners of Telos Publishing Ltd.". This brings into question the verifiability of using him as a source. Wikipedia:Verifiability --60.230.74.98 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Stephen James Walker for details. DonQuixote (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's a prolific commentator and an expert in the field, as I think was the conclusion reached on some other article.~ZytheTalk to me! 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone from outside the 'field' needs to comment on the verifiability of this source. His wiki page supports the evidence that he is a self-publicist, which does not make him an 'expert', but simply a commentator. --60.230.74.98 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly think all reference to this man be excluded as his work just creates a lot of fandom nonsense that doesn't belong on this site. The article about Ianto Jones is even fucking worse and belongs on fanlore - not wikipedia. I noticed comments on that page indicating that "fanboys" were just mad that someone is dashing their 'ship but adding continued commentary from someone who shouldn't be listed is just someone else supporting theirs in the opposite direction. Speculation and borderline fighting over relationship on a tv show shouldn't be in any of these damn articles. It's canon he shagged Ianto Jones. That's all that needs stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitterandlube (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't give a shit about canon, only what's verifiable and interesting; i.e. what makes it to published sources.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

Feel free to ignore the warning that says it's too long, 91kb long, etc. I consulted the rules. Using 'User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js', I was able to reveal that the actual rating is: Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6915 words) "readable prose size". This is perfect.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mortality

Obviously some details on his mortality should be included now-his cut arm, his scars, and possible poisoning by cyanide... 92.20.181.125 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanide? after watching the episode it's Bold textarsenic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.235.209 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of detail for a 10-part series. Can't you wait so everything is in perspective? There isn't much to say, yet.Zythe (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Face of Boe error

The wording on the Boe section suggests the Face of Boe was not included in The End of Time. He most certainly appears in that episode - this is the one that introduced him and formed the first part of the Boe Trilogy that continued with New Earth and Gridlock. I've corrected the wording (however as edits by me as an IP are often deleted without question, someone might want to check to make sure the correction I added is still there). 68.146.80.110 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Russell T Davies, Phil Ford, Ashley Way (2008-03-05). "Something Borrowed". Torchwood. BBC Three.
  2. ^ Russell T Davies, Peter J. Hammond, Jonathan Fox Bassett (2008-12-05). "From out of the Rain". Torchwood. BBC Three.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Harkness&oldid=466167403"