Jump to content

Talk:Gene Hunt

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

Birthdate

[edit]

"Gene Hunt was born in 1931 (as he is portrayed as being in his early 40s)." - was this somebody's unmathematical guess, or a just badly-phrased reference to an actual source that puts his year of birth as 1931? I've assumed the former and removed it for now. --McGeddon (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • His birth date has not been established in canon. The most likely is 1931 tho. This would make him 42 in 1973 (a year younger than Philip Glenister at the time of filming) having done his national service in 1949-1950. He couldn't have been born earlier though, as National service wasn't established until 1949 and it's already been established he left it at the age of 19 to join the police force, so he'd have to have joined it at 17-18 for the 18 month stint.Exxolon (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using present tense to describe fiction

[edit]

This article's infobox currently says "Police Officer formerly for Manchester and Salford Police and now the London Metropolitan Police Service." This should be revised to match the continuous present tense that the rest of the article uses for fiction. In the action of Life on Mars, Gene Hunt is a member of the Manchester Police, in Ashes to Ashes, he is a member of the London Police. Only if we were speaking specifically of the character's Ashes to Ashes appearance could we say he was "formerly" with the Manchester Police. The usage of "now" is meaningless, since it doesn't help specify which point in the 17 episodes he has appeared in is being used as a reference.--Trystan (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Skills

[edit]

I just created this new section. It's only a draft. I'm happy to put work into it, adding examples and references, but I wanted to gauge the other editors' (your) reaction to the new section as a whole first. Do you agree that it's valuable? CuteGargoyle (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed as original research. I would have thought as POV, but understandable either way. CuteGargoyle (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

[edit]

I don't see why my addition of information about Harvey Keitel playing him in the US version was removed. Yes, the article concerns the British character, but the information about the actor playing his American counterpart is notable enough to also be included in the lead. Ausir (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unreferenced. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using "unreferenced" as a catch-all, end-of-conversation reason for reverting to your preferred version of an article, Jack. 90% of this article has no explicit references.
Mentioning that a similar character exists in the other series would be fine; if we've actually got any sources that talk about how the writers altered the character (or what Glenister thinks of Keitel's performance), we could have a couple of paragraphs in the main article. So long as we don't go back to the confusing "Gene Hunt worked in Manchester in 1973 and New York in 1974" tone that this article had for a while, I think we're fine. --McGeddon (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing that at all, please stop using your catch-all of my preferred version. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You undid twenty separate edits to your own previous version of this article, because some original research had crept in during those edits. You've also been consistently reverting to your own versions of Life on Mars related articles because you disagree with the edits of User:MileyDavidA this week. Your explanation for all of this has been "original research/unreferenced". --McGeddon (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have been, they are all full of blatant unreferenced/OR information. Taking into account what a fetish you have for the rules, I thought you would agree. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have contained very small amounts of original research, but that's all. They're no more unreferenced than the current versions of the articles, which draw heavily from the series itself as a source. Reverting them and giving the user four flat vandal warnings because his contributions are somehow more "unreferenced" than the rest of the article is unhelpful and confusing, and I hope we haven't lost an enthusiastic Life on Mars fan because of it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so, I'm past the point of arguing with you, its just not worth it. You seem to be some sort of robot, who just reads what you want to see. But make no mistakes, WP:OR/unreferenced material will not enter this article. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like an unhelpful misconception about how Wikipedia works. Unreferenced material can become referenced, and original research can sometimes be salvaged by sourcing or rewriting it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing uncontroversial facts that you know to be true like the name of the actor playing Hunt in the US remake because they're "unreferenced" is simply silly, especially considering the amount of unreferenced material in this and related articles. Ausir (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not influenced by what you think is silly. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed his rank, due to this not being in the source. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an unsourced but uncontroversial fact in an article, you should consider flagging it with the temporary {{fact}} tag rather than deleting it outright. Or simply raise it on the talk page before editing, if you are unsure how true something is. Ausir is right when he says it is "silly" to pick out individual, uncontroversial facts as unreferenced, when 90% of the article lacks clear references.
You are bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point here, and damaging the article. Please stop this. --McGeddon (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what point is this, I am trying to prove? Instead of not removing it, you could always try putting a reference next to the text. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're using an excessively strict interpretation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy to remove edits that you have unclear personal objections to, while leaving your preferred unsourced material intact. This is disruptive. --McGeddon (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have reffed it, the problem has gone. You should have just done that in the first place. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably Ausir should have checked that the existing source backed up the specific word "Lieutenant", when he added it to the paragraph, but it's no great crime that he overlooked it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you're removing only unreferenced and easily checkable basic facts about the US version, and not any of the unreferenced, and less obvious facts that are present in the article now? This is just silly. Ausir (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is silly? We are discussing something that has happened, and gone. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Ausir (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are debating over something that is old. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the status of old information different than new information in terms of having to be referenced? Ausir (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may not understand the convo. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying we should stop trying to explain why deleting unreferenced and uncontroversial material can damage an article, because your previous deletions have now been fixed? Does this mean you now understand why it's sometimes unhelpful and will keep it in mind, or that you disagree and will continue to delete similar content in future? --McGeddon (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what your on about. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try re-reading this thread. Two editors are concerned that your approach of deleting uncontroversial, unreferenced material (while leaving other content intact) is unhelpful. --McGeddon (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still dont know what your on about. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 07:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which part do you not understand? --McGeddon (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Service

[edit]

I'm confused. The article says Gene Hunt did his National Service and joined the police at 19. But wasn't National Service a two-year stretch from the age of 18? (From the North (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, but TV programmes do alter things to make it benefit them. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So this was taken straight from a line of dialogue in the series? --McGeddon (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing it, it makes sense that he did his National Service because he knows how to handle a Webley & Scott, and an the time, that was the revolver of the British Army. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the article on conscription in the UK: From 1 January 1949, every healthy man between 17 and 21 was expected to serve in the armed forces for 18 months, and remain on the reserve list for four years, with a liability to be recalled to their units for up to twenty days service or training on not more than three occasions in the four years. Men were exempt from National Service if they worked in one of the three "essential services": coal mining, farming and the merchant navy for a period of 8 years. If they quit early, they were subject to be called up. Exemption continued for conscientious objectors, with the same tribunal system and categories. In October 1950, in response to the Korean War, the service period was extended to two years. To me that says he would have been conscripted post-1949, and that would in turn put his earliest date of birth in 1932. --82.33.59.175 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Genie

[edit]

I'm suprised no one has mentioned yet (unless I'm mistaken, in which case forgive me), that Gene Hunt refers to himself as the Gene Genie, which of course is another David Bowie song called 'The Jean Genie', which was released in 1972. The lyrics to this song also might enlighten on what the producers think of his personality

81.111.39.100 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hunt as psychopomp

[edit]

Is he an example of one? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blast to the Past?

[edit]

Is there evidence that the character will be in this, or even evidence that the series exists or will ever exist? If not, it ought to be removed. --93.96.175.64 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who inserted this information did not reference it. Pending a source, I'm going to remove it. If you do find a source or any evidence please feel free to re-add. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gene Hunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gene Hunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gene_Hunt&oldid=1202240958"