Talk:Ianto Jones

Correct Usage

"was partially converted into a Cyberman." shouldn't that be Cyberwomen as she was female?

Not neccessarily as we've seen other Cyber conversions of people including Alt Jackie Taylor and Yvonne hartman without changing the name of the species. Its no different from the use of Man in Human in truth. Ricohard1986 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

150.212.48.41 (talk · contribs), I appreciate your attempts at improving the article but I feel you are going about it the wrong way. We should restrict character history content a great deal and focus more upon the creation and development of the character. It's also not a stretch to say we should wait a bit for Friday's episode when we'll delve into Ianto's backstory a bit more. See the article on Jack Harkness for an idea of how we should handle writing about fictional characters.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems to have made it his personal mission in the "Fan Reaction" section to paint the people objecting to the writers' decision to kill off Ianto Jones in as negative a light as possible. Paragraph upon paragraph of emphasis here on an extremely small and unrepresentative minority of individuals who behaved badly in the heat of anger, with citations only to fan sites that support this painting of Ianto Jones fans as nutters. Huge amounts of spin in every description in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladysalieri (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And it's more reaction to the fan's than what it's supposed to be, IMO. It's more of a reaction to a reaction. Ophois (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's simply a focus on the real-world events. I have read every single news article containing the word "Ianto Jones" published by a reliable souce in the last month and amalgamated them all while sticking closely to the source. Nothing is invented, nothing is strained, it's all quotes from real sources. If there are sources defending the fans, add them. And a "reaction to a reaction" is the sort of thing Wikipedia covers. And, not one source is to a "fan site"; this would account for the tone, I suppose, because fan sites are run by fans and news websites are from largely objective onlookers.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of this section needs to be addressed, and feel that this will be hard given all the negative coverage of this campaign, which some people think needs to be quoted in its entirety on this page. I want to bring up a specific point about something I added about the Wales Online follow up. Namely, this sentence: In their comments, fans pointed out that his article disproportionately highlights what they called the "ill-conceived, knee jerk reactions" of a few individuals, and stressed that these reactions in no way represent the movement to bring Ianto Jones back, which they hold as fundamentally respectful towards the show's actors and writers. The bold parts were changed, and while I agree with the second addition, I feel as though the first is unnecessary and has already been implied by the statements "in their comments" and "fans pointed out". I also feel that both additions make the sentence sound very awkward. I would like to change it back, but don't want to start an edit war. Does whoever changed it want to defend their position? And can I change it back? --Charsea (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, and here's why. In every instance of a person being quoted, whatever their opinion, it is important to represent that as not being objective fact. Every positive and negative viewpoint about the fans or about the writers or about the journalists involved should be sufficiently attributed. "Fans pointed out" = assumption of truth, "in their comments... the knee-jerk" = assumption of truth. Perhaps the prose needs adjusting, but it's important that if James Moran or Digital Spy calls the fans melodramatic, we say who said it and don't imply it's true beyond the sources. Same goes for fans in defence of themselves.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the section is POV at all. We're just presenting sourced information, from multiple angles I might add. I think Zythe has done a brilliant job on this section. And I find it a bit rich of people to accuse him of pushing a personal agenda when they've been removing sourced information they don't like.  Paul  730 23:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don’t quite see how “in their comments, fans pointed out…the knee-jerk” is an assumption of truth, but I will leave it as is, since I can’t think of a more artful way to put it. And I do agree about the technical objectivity of this article, as it is created entirely out of quotes from other media; my issues with the tone stem from the external sources being cited. The disjoint between how they’ve been portrayed by the media and their actual positions and actions is ongoing problem within the Save Ianto Jones community.

When reading this section, entitled “Fan reaction”, it was disconcerting to find that it began with a large paragraph of hand-picked quotes from fans (whom I completely disapprove of) abusing Moran. The sole mention of Save Ianto Jones is buried in a paragraph with RTD stating there were only nine packet of coffee sent, which is a lie, and Den of Geek, hardly an authority on Torchwood, reiterating RTD’s point about a resurrection devaluing the story. Furthermore, there is half of a paragraph dedicated to the Digtal Spy poll. Not only was it completely inconsequential, but there is little basis for Wilkes’s accusations, as the poll was circulated heavily in two communities full of Ianto fans. I also added the line about “RTD’s head on a plate” being his own wording, because I felt that the community was being portrayed intentionally as violent.

Zythe, as you seem to be the authority on editing this page I will defer further editing decisions to you. I would really like to see this divided into two sections; one for the fan reaction and another for the media coverage. As it stands now, the reaction itself seems lost in the wordiness of the article; I’d like for people to be able to visit the Save Ianto Jones community, as well as the articles coving it, and form an opinion for themselves.

--Charsea (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, the sources and quotes aren't "picked". This is the fullest representation of the coverage. It would be subscribing to a bias to try and rearrange it to promote the SaveIantoJones website. There is little basis for Wilkes' assumptions, you're right, but they're a notable part of the fan reaction. A further subsection to fan reaction? Would that be ====Media reaction to fan reaction====? Seems hugely self-reflexive and needlessly pointed in its distinguishing between "what the fans say" and "how the fans have been described"; the perception of the fans is what really characterises their "fan reaction" in the first place. I would recommend, if you are a representative from SaveIantoJones (or one reading this), that you get your side of the story covered by a news website. Although, I don't think AfterElton or Wales Online will want to do follow up articles on the fans feeling misrepresented. You guys will definitely get a dozen new news articles in the run up to and after Children in Need, which will all focus on the money raised and the charitable aspect which Wikipedia ought to cover with the same scrutiny. People do have the option to SaveIantoJones as the website is described at the head of a paragraph on the fan campaign; it can't by policy go in external links and it shouldn't be given an artificial amount of weight.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My reference to the comments being picked is not directed at you, rather at the source of the material; it is a direct quote from Moran’s blog (hardly an objective source), in which he was rightfully upset by some feedback he’d received, but I think that the quotes he picked out are hardly representative of the majority of fan reactions.

How do you feel about a subsection of the fan reaction dedicated to Save Ianto Jones specifically, as well as the media coverage (both positive and negative) of this specific campaign? The campaign is organized, and there are a large number of people involved. Their actions are distinct enough that they should not be lumped in with the people who abused Moran or the three individuals fingered in James McCarthy’s article. I agree that it would be fitting to present them with the quotes from RTD’s interview and Den of Geek’s comments, as they directly refer to the campaign to bring him back.

I am not representative of the website, but if you think that this seems fair I wouldn’t mind writing a few paragraphs and getting input from those more directly involved. I would definitely send it to you afterward and you can be the final judge on its objectivity. --Charsea (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If they can get a news outlet (even an online one like AfterElton, Den of Geek and io9) to publish it, then it's fair game for inclusion.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there has already been enough coverage to create one or two heavily sourced paragraph about what the community has been doing and its official positions. I will begin drafting something now, and let you be the judge of whether it warrants it's own section, or at least a more prominent position in this section. Thanks so much for hearing me out on this! --Charsea (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion

would seem to be a very devout Christian on the basis of his quoting the book of Daniel in Season 1 season finale? worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.205.112 (talk • contribs) 02:49, April 21, 2008

There are non-Christians who can quote scripture. Drawing any conclusion from Ianto's ability to quote the book of Daniel would be original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

fair 'nuff, but he was saying it like he meant it.67.168.205.112 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's your reading of that performance. I read it like someone with a little bit of scripture knowledge quoting belligerently.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The religious element of Ianto's character is discussed in Torchwood Magazine issue #5, on page 13. --Clarrisani (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One-sided relationship

A couple of editors have removed the following from the article:

Stephen James Walker feels sorry for Ianto, perceiving his relationship with Jack as a one-sided one. Ianto views the relationship as "serious and committed", as seen in "A Day in the Death" where he tells Owen that it is not just about sex. However, while dancing with Gwen in "Something Borrowed", Jack equates sex with Ianto with recreational activities like eating pizza. When Ianto cuts in to dance with Jack, bringing the relationship fully into public for the first time, Walker claims "it is obvious that Jack only has eyes and thoughts for Gwen".[39]

Sorry if this pisses off all the Janto fanboys out there, but it's sourced to the Torchwood analysis book Something in the Darkness and has no grounds for removal. If you disagree, make your case here instead of deleting it again.  Paul  730 03:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not the Janto fans who are getting upset, it's the Ianto fans. SJW is not a fan of Ianto at the best of times. Well, the phrase "Jack equates sex with Ianto with recreational activities like eating pizza." is not a direct quote from SJW and may read better as "Jack jokingly equates sex with Ianto with recreational activities like eating pizza." Also, the entire line in that quote from the show is "Oh, the usual. Pizza, Ianto, save the world a couple of times", so you could also say that Jack equates sex with Ianto with saving the world. Clarrisani  03:23, 25 January 2009 (AEST)

SJW does not need to be a Ianto fan for his opinion to have weight in this article, since he's a published author and therefore notable. The article should not written exclusively by or for fans, but be a balanced account which provides critical commentary, both positive and negative, on the subject. We have several opinions in the article discussing how wonderful Jack and Ianto are as a couple; by including another one which criticises the relationship we provide a wider, more neutral, perspective. It is clear in the article that SJW's opinion is just that, his opinion, we are not saying that it is cold hard canonical fact. While the pizza comment in "Something Borrowed" can be interpreted different ways, we can not discuss those other interpretations without a published source, so stating that "Jack equates sex with Ianto with saving the world" would be original research. I removed the word "jokingly" from the article, because you're now meshing your own opinion with the actual sources'.  Paul  730 16:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - since it is that line in particular that is getting most fans back up (although the use of SJW alone is getting peoples back up because he used other fans work in his book without permission), why not simply use the quote itself so it is clear it is SJW's words and not the wiki editors. The quote itself is "even Jack seems to equate having sex with Ianto with eating pizza", so why not work that line to:

while dancing with Gwen in "Something Borrowed", Jack "seems to equate having sex with Ianto with eating pizza."

Remove the mention of "recreational activity", because SJW said "he sees it as essentially recreational", which itself should also be quoted as again, SJW's words. Mind you, I have no objection to this being on Jack's page, but parts of the SJW reference do not sit well on Ianto's page (the "eyes only for Gwen" is about Jack, not Ianto)  Clarrisani  01:16, 27 January 2009 (AEST)

The thing that is really getting people about it is that SJW is such an utter Gwen lover/Ianto hater that it's painful to see his exceptionally biased opinions stated as (essentially) fact on this page. I agree that putting that on Jack's page is appropriate, but here it is out of place and fairly offensive. Perhaps it would be easier to swallow if SJW was actually attempting to be unbiased in his analysis of the series. However, after reading his books his bias is clear and undeniable, and is not only against TW canon but is very hostile to Ianto (and Rhys) in particular. Also, his books are not the in depth analysis they claim to be but rather a very Jack/Gwen centric viewpoint which all but ignores the other characters (in particular Ianto, Tosh and Rhys) in favor of Gwen, Gwen, Gwen. This article need not be in praise of the character, but this portion of text is completely subjective and is totally at odds with the supposed unbiased format of the website. A more objective portion would be appropriate...the mention of Jack's turmoil with regard to his feelings for Gwen and Ianto is not the issue, as it is well established, but rather it is the denigrating 'SJW thinks Ianto is being used for sex' implication that rankles.(This is an opinion not actually supported in the material, as well as coming from someone who so clearly and vociferously hates Ianto) Supporting SJW as an authority on this topic (SJW does not even see Ianto, if his 'analysis' is any indication) is not only disappointing, but unethical considering his use of other fans words and opinions in his self published Gwen love-in. I thought objective was the format here. I am very sad to find I am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquila2 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to alter the prose so that it directly quotes SJW's words, that would be fine and perhaps make it more clear that it is one individual's opinion.

Second of all, I've read SJW's book and I think labelling him an "utter Gwen lover/Ianto hater" is extreme. I do not recall him ever bashing the character of Ianto and in fact I think he seems to review Torchwood as a whole pretty fairly and positively. You claim that the information is subjective and biased... of course it is. Every writer has their own opinions and a slant to their work, that does not make them unreliable on this website. The objectivity of Wikipedia, as per WP:NPOV, refers to the editors of this site, not the sources themselves which have whatever opinion they want so long as they provide critical commentary and are notable in some way (ie, not some fan in chatroom). Look at film articles, specifically the "Reception" sections. We source a variety of reviews, positive and negative, to provide commentary on how the film was recieved in the media. Obivously, each of those reviewers will have a subjective viewpoint; Wikipedia achieves neutrality not by ommitting negative sources but by including a balance of both positive and negative. SJW's comments provide commentary on Ianto because it offers another perspective on the relationship other than all the "Jack and Ianto are wonderful together blah blah" that the writers and actors are saying. For the last time, you don't have to agree with that opinion for it to be valid in the article. If the entire page was sourced exclusively to SJW's book and provided only negative opinions, your agument might stand. As it is, it's one opinion amidst a lot of other opinions.

Finally, all this SJW-hate actually makes you out to be the biased one because you're trying to remove a source simply because you don't like it. Who cares if he prefers Gwen/Jack to Ianto/Jack? That's hardly a good enough reason not to use his book as a source.  Paul  730 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep the information - Wikipedians must be neutral, and not let their personal biases interfere with their editing. So long as Stephen Walker is a professional writer/critic (or whatever he is) and not some fanboy with a personal blog, then his opinion is valid for inclusion. From what I can read of the statement, it isn't an attack on Ianto, it is his observation that Ianto is basically getting shafted by Jack. Based on the info Paul presented, ff anything, Walker is showing that he feels pity for Ianto and not that he prefers the Jack/Gwen relationship. Even if he does, again that is neither here nor there, so long as he backs his opinion up with facts, which he has at least done when he explained that Ianto is basically getting fisted by Jack (pardon the term). The fact that we do not personally agree with his assessment is irrelevant, because (hopefully) he gets paid to make that assessment. If someone published a peer-reviewed academic journal on Ianto's sexuality, and criticized it, then that would be a viable source for inclusion no matter how much you disagree with that fact. The fact remains, so long as the source is reliable, it doesn't matter what they are saying, or if you disagree with their assessment. Based on your logic Clarrisani and Aguila2, we should only publish happy things--e.g. all film articles should limit themselves to positive reviews, because negative reviews show just how much someone hates the film--unfortunately, that logic is in direct violation of one of our core policies (i.e. one of the policies that you can NEVER ignore), and that is our neutral point of view policy. Now, you are well within your rights as editors to find a reliable source that positively looks at the Ianto/Jack relationship. But, be warned, this could very well be a relationship not well liked by critics, and thus you may only find additional negative statements. If that's the case, that's actually quite awesome because it shows wide-spread uniformity on the opinion of their relationship. The simple fact that it bothers someone in the real world is actually a positive thing for this article, because it means it's notable! :D.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You realise, of course, that Stephen James Walker co-owns and co-edits Telos Publishing Ltd, which, by all means, makes him a self-publicist.  Clarrisani  03:57, 28 January 2009 (AEST)

First, their website list him as a "director". I don't see his name anywhere as an "owner" (so I have to assume that you got your information from Amazon or his Wikipage...which is the only place I could find such a claim, and as such they might actually be wrong - the Wiki page doesn't have a source, and probably gets the info from Amazon). Regardless, the fact that he works for/owns Telos is neither here nor there, as what I was refering to was a "personal blog". He was a published author. Now, granted that he was "self-published" in the sense that the company he works for published the book (that's kind of what they do for a living anyway - if you check the site out you'll find more books), self-published sources are allowed in limited usage and if there is good reason to believe that the information cannot be found via some other third-party source. In this case, you're talking about someone has has a connection to the series running back 30 years and has been actively involved in various BBC sanctioned Doctor Who projects. I'd say his opinion at least warrants some mentioning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if he plagiarises in his book? This is why some fans are a little ticked off about him being cited. Oh, and Paul, I've also read the book. Please don't make me pull out and post the quotes. Then again, I do feel that SJW's opinion on the Ianto/Lisa relationship is more valid than the reference to Jack/Gwen which currently exists on the page. And Bignole, from the Telos Publishing Ltd website: "Stephen James Walker is one of the directors and co-owners of Telos Publishing Ltd." Clarrisani  04:36, 28 January 2009 (AEST)

To the first comment, please do not accuse authors of plagiarizing unless you have the facts to back it up (i.e. where someone has proven that he has plagiarized his material). As for the final, is there a link to this page of the website, because I was all over it and couldn't find that statement. Found it myself. He's a ghastly looking man.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, just spotted this. Missed it last time around. A group of fans had pieces taken from their reviews and published in Walker's book. He never approached them beforehand asking their permission. As the book is for profit, some of the fans took offense and posted an outcry several places online, leading to Walker commenting about never visiting places like LiveJournal ever again.--Clarrisani (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is neither plagarism (as from what Paul stated, and I think you've read/own the book so you can confirm this) he did give them credit, nor does he require their permission. They entered a public forum and engaged in discussion. He has legal right to use whatever public information he wants in his books. That would be like me writing a non-fiction book about the rise of Wikipedia, and using a quote from Jimbo that he gave USA Today. Then Jimbo turns around and says, "I didn't give you permission to use my words"...this is true, but I didn't have to ask for it either. This wasn't a personal interview where one can say "this is off the record", this was a public forum where all comments are given freely. Not giving permission is not the same as saying "don't quote me". Next time, maybe the people at LiveJournal will realize that their information is open to the public, and as such it is open to be quoted and taken freely for non-profit and profit ventures alike.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The alleged "plagiarism" comes from him including quotes froms fans taken from chatrooms and blogs. I'm not sure I'd call that plagiarism, since he acknowledges the name (screen name in most cases) of the person he's quoting and the source of the quote, he's not taking their argument and passing it off as his own.

Clarrisani, if you feel Walker provides valid commentary on Ianto/Lisa than by all means add that information, nobody's stopping you, in fact it would be welcome. It's very clear this really comes down to you not agreeing with his opinion about Jack/Ianto, and all this nonsense about plagiarism and self-publishing is just grasping at straws to have an opinion you don't like removed. I'm not sure how many times I can explain that you don't need to agree with something for it to be valuable in the article. This debate is getting quite ludicrous IMO.  Paul  730 12:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am questioning the inclusion of the reference to Jack/Gwen which would be better suited on Jack's page (which it already is), and the phrasing. I welcome alternative views to the Jack/Ianto relationship, it is simply that Stephen James Walker is being used heavily on the Torchwood articles at the moment (he takes up a big chunk of Gwen's). I have no issue at all with this paragraph on Jack's page which is where the latter part belongs, only it's appearance on Ianto's. In fact, if I find someone else who mentions the relationship in a non-positive light, I will include it. I'm sure I can dig out my DW mag which has the John Barrowman quote (although JB sometimes switches and changes his mind a lot about Jack) It is simply SJW has had some issues of using other peoples work for profit without permission. I will also look through the books for the Ianto/Lisa information - it is also negative of Ianto's character, so you'll have some balance. --Clarrisani (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but the only mention of Jack/Gwen that I remember was in comparison to Jack/Ianto. In that light, it is acceptable because the author is drawing a comparison to another coupling on the show. It would be like how someone compared Lionel Luthor's relationship with his son to that of Norman and Harry Osborn from the first Spider-Man film. It's a literary (or in this case a television) comparison of other figures sharing a similar experience. As for his overuse in other articles, that's something to bring up on those articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this still apply if one of the couplings being compared is a Fanon_(fiction) coupling? --Clarrisani (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ditto on Jack/Gwen being relevant to this article as a direct comparison to Jack/Ianto. SJW not overused at all. I bought his book a few months ago and added some info to each of the articles because there wasn't much real-world info in most of them. I think there's a brief paragraph on Gwen's page, which is hardly overuse. He might seem heavily used because there's no other analysis from other authors, which doesn't mean what anaylysis is there should be removed. Walker is not being used at the expense of other sources, if you find other sources which meet WP:RS and offer some valuable information, then they'd be extremely welcome in the articles.

Clarrisiani, Jack/Gwen are hardly "fanon" (Gwen explicitly says she loves Jack) and yes, SJW's reference to their relationship is entirely relevant.  Paul  730 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack/Gwen may also be described as one-sided relationship in that we have not seen Jack make any comment regarding his feelings for Gwen, whereas we have the line "I love him, but not in the way I love you" from Gwen in "Adam" (which was promptly forgotten). I actually have some quotes from Eve Myles regarding Jack/Gwen and Gwen/Rhys that I will be adding to Gwen's page in future (it's almost 1am here, and I have work in the morning). I'm sure that the Official Guide/Encyclopedia will help clarrify things in its October release, by which point Season Three will have aired anyway. And does the Torchwood Archives count? It's basically an encyclopedia of information put together by Gary_Russell --Clarrisani (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to explain (details and context), and I'll have to read it when I get back from my morning class (12 pm, so in about 3 hours). I'll try and address this once I have the facts. It could be something like the "Chlois" theory for Chloe Sullivan, which is a fan theory, but one acknowledged by professionals and the people in charge of the show. Won't know till I return. Cheers everyone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually 1am here and I have work in the morning, otherwise I'd put together a few things. All I can tell you in regards to Jack/Gwen was that when the show was initially created the intention was for their to be sexual tension between the male lead Jack (John Barrowman) and the female lead Gwen (Eve Myles), with Gwen's boyfriend Rhys dying in the season final. However, the production team changed their minds in killing Rhys, and realised the fan popularity of the sexual relationship between Jack and Ianto. When Season Two began this was acknowledged by the engagement between Gwen and Rhys, and the dating relationship between Jack and Ianto. The attraction between Jack and Gwen did continue, but the production team concluded it in the episode "Something Borrowed", which has been acknowledged by many critics. However, Stephen James Walker is currently the only person to have published in hard copy a critical, if somewhat bias, work on the show. There is information in the magazine and other books including The Torchwood Archives [1] (for which I cannot find a Wikipedia entry for some reason), but that's all.--Clarrisani (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think Walker was calling Jack and Gwen's relationship "official", but more or less saying that he really desires Gwen over Ianto, as Walker views Jack's actions within his relationship with Ianto as nothing more than eating pizza (i.e. Walker believes, based on Jack's actions, that Jack does not value his relationship with Ianto as he would if he was with Gwen). That was my interpretation of the quoted text from Walker's book (but I don't have the book, so I cannot say if that is accurate or not because I lack the context).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you ever happen to see the book on a bookshelf somewhere, have a quick flick through it. You'll find that Walker is rather focused on Gwen (even in the episodes where she is not a main character). Walker, in his analysis of the scene in question, missed the end of the quote. The full quote is "Oh, the usual. Pizza, Ianto, save the world a couple of times", and the scene is Gwen and Jack having a laugh. Walker appears to have entirely overlooked the tone and body language of the characters, tunneling the scene to what he wants to see and also overlooking key scenes for the Jack/Ianto relationship in "To The Last Man", "Adam", earlier in "Something Borrowed", and even one in "From Out of the Rain", not to mention the scene where Jack nervously asks Ianto out on a date in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang". Despite this, he somehow manages to read in that Gwen has slept with Jack by dialogue in "Sleeper" and "Reset", and even the Jack/Gwen fans can't work out where he got that from because they dismissed that dialogue themselves. I am hoping that, in the near future, a more accurate critic is published, or perhaps a book that the BBC endorses. --Clarrisani (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for facts, not for opinions. There are umpteen writers who have given opinions as to the show and its characters in books and national publications. Viewer opinions perhaps have their place, for example in a section on 'critical response' but to single out one viewer's purely self-published opinion and include it in a factual section about a character is not justified and is deeply biased. SJW is entitled to his opinion, but "one viewer thinks..." has no place in an encyclopedia. Stating one viewer's interpretation of a line as, "fictional character means X" is Original Research. If you can find a statement from someone connected with the show stating the intent behind that line, by all means add it. Queer Scout (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

According to his personal Telos page, he has published with other publishing houses, thus his establishment as a professional writer beyond the company he owns is rather clear. The fact that this particular book was published by the company he owns is irrelevant. It would be like saying Donald Trumps opinion on the economic crisis of the US is irrelevant because it happened to be in a book published by his own company. Personal blogs are generally a no-no, but this isn't a blog. This is a book written by an established author (beyond Telos Publishing). I mean, if Stephen King decided that he wanted to publish his own books (both fiction and non-fiction) himself from here on out, does that mean that his opinion as an author is now no longer valid? Queen, I'm not sure where you're reading at WP:NOR that stating one viewers, verified via reliable source opinion is original research. Could you point that statement out to me on the policy page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Queer Scout, you're wrong, articles in Wikipedia are welcome to cite published sources to provide commentary on the subject. See Cordelia Chase as a good example; that article sources various academic texts from people not involved in the show, studying the development of the character and offering their opinions throughout. WP:NOR refers to the article's editors; it states "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Published articles and books would be considered reliable, published sources are therefore do not constitute original research. If there are umpteen writers who have given opinions on Ianto, it would be wise to source those writers, as that would establish wider notability for the character and provide more real-world perspective on his role in pop culture. Your arguments display a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV and WP:NOR actually mean.  Paul  730 13:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One viewer's self-published episode guide (which he freely admits contains multiple extracts from fans' LiveJournal.com blogs, used without permission[2]) is not "an academic text." There is no evidence that Mr Walker's opinions are notable -- and nothing to suggest they be given such undue weight that his opinion be the sole one cited (except for the show's own cast and makers). Unsourced statements comparing him to household names and stating "his establishment as a professional writer is clear" do not prove notability. I can find little on this Walker except that he used to run a fanzine and has published some books via his own small press. A Google search brings up only websites published by Walker/his company, or book listings. A Nexis search brings only five results (two reviews from online blogs, a reader letter Walker had published, and two newspaper articles interviewing him as a fan). If you can provide an independent source (i.e not one authored by Walker) showing he is a recognised expert and author, please do so, although that does not prove notability for his opinions.

In addition some statements, like, "Jack equates his relationship with Ianto to eating pizza" are entirely uncited and purely a matter of interpretation. Perhaps this is simply an error of wording and this sentence is intended to mean, "SJW believes that Jack equates..." but as it currently stands, it is unsourced.

The major problem is that the article does not read like an encyclopedia. A lot of opinion-based wrangling and speculation about who the main character truly loves is better suited for a fansite. An encyclopedia should stick to the facts (the content of the show and official spinoff merchandise, and statements made by the makers). The fact there there apparently is a big "shipping war" within this fandom gives more reason for Wikipedia to avoid taking a line on who a character really loves and whether a relationship is valid. I suggest a total rewrite is needed.

I have taken the advice above and added a note on RsC.Queer Scout (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

SJW's words here are completely subjective and, as QueerScout stated, completely a matter of interpretation. Speculation about Jack's feelings for Gwen or Ianto is completely irrelevant to Ianto's page, and why it was even placed there to begin with is mystifying. The entry should include the fact that Ianto is in a relationship with Jack, and that the relationship is continuing to grow, as we have been told by the director (for one) in regards to s3. Including SJW's wishful and very biased (once again, isn't Wiki aspiring to neutrality?) opinion on what Jack is feeling, in particular that he equates Ianto to recreational activities, (and since when is eating and saving the world recreational? Even on that matter, SJW is showing his bias, putting forth as fact what he alone believes to be true, despite conflicting evidence.) and that he is 'clearly thinking only of Gwen,' is ludicrous. Jack's feelings for Gwen, (and SJW's opinions thereof) whatever they may be, are not relevant here...perhaps they are on Jack and Gwen's pages, but not on Ianto's. Anyway, SJW's opinions on that score have been since been jossed by all three involved actors, the s3 director and a producer. Why it's still being held as fact when it is not even relevant to Ianto is making me a little crazy, tbh.

QueerScout is right, the whole thing should be redone. Finding Gwack on Ianto's page is disturbing.

One more thing. I am not a sockpuppet, thank you very much. I live in Canada and Clarrisani is in Australia. Check the IP's if you still doubt. I was the first to see this bit here, as it was new since the last time I'd read the page and put me on edge immediately. I turned to Clarrisani because she has experience here and I do not, and then registered a name myself so I could discuss it as well. I was hoping to find some reasonable discussion, but the desperation to keep this irrelevant and exceptionally biased opinion simply because SJW is lucky enough to own his own company is making me lose respect for this site in general. Neutral and factual, wiki is not, it seems. I do not understand the need to denigrate the character here in order to be 'neutral.' A simple, 'these are the facts as we know them now' without speculation in regards to the feelings of any of the characters is all this page needs to be neutral. Force feeding Gwack (or Janto on Gwen's page, though if someone was idiotic enough to dare it I'm sure that it would be removed immediately) on a page that is about a completely different character is just crazy. Aquila2 (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do none of the crazed fans understand the idea of published author offering television analysis and how a Wikipedia article must be objective and comprehensive? Your fan notions of 'Janto' and 'Gwack' are entirely irrelevent to Wikipedia's ends. All we are concerned with is writing a good, balanced article and as it stands now it reflects the existing entirety of first and third party descriptions and analyses. In fact, anyone who can't understand that really doesn't know what Wikipedia is.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"crazed fans"? That's a bit of a generalisation there. One could almost read that as an attack. Janto and Gwack are relevant in regards to the fact they are directly connected to the characters in question, and thus "Janto" as it is, should appear on the Jack and Ianto pages, and "Gwack", on the Jack and Gwen pages. I think you're coming across very defensive Zythe, and that may be because one of your friends posted Walker's comments originally if I read the history page right, so I can understand why you are defensive. Caused quite a bit of controversy in the fandom, it has. Btw, I noticed you edited out the "Walker thinks that" edit someone made - it was actually suggested earlier by one of the other editors that something along those lines be included. Shame the person who posted the edit also vandalised the page. Idiot (the poster, not you). How often does that happen? --Clarrisani (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I WAS the original SJW editor - however, I may have retooled Paul's edits from the Jack page to strengthen the Ianto article. I didn't mean to come across as an attack, but what I was trying to get across is that the concepts of Janto and Gwack fanbases are only relevent if say, a third party book or respected website were to describe them. They do not bare on the other content. It's inane that fans seem to think that Wikipedia cares one way or another who Jack ends up with, or how Ianto is described by some television critic. The key is disinterested objectivity. The removal of "Walker thinks that" actually just happened because I wanted to revert all one editors edits because I assumed they were all changes of 'Twilight' to 'Twatlight'. That said, the line in context (discussing SJW's opinions) does not present itself as fact, so the words are nevertheless superfluous.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You mention that Walker discusses the Ianto/Lisa relationship? That would be very useful for the article if you were to add it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll dig out my books. He discusses Ianto/Lisa a couple of times, but I don't think it was in much depth. He spent a tad too much time looking at Gwen. --Clarrisani (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked back and realised that it was Paul that did the edits and tried to change my comment before you could reply, but you're very quick off the mark. You realise that what most fans are objecting to is the phrasing of this sentence: "However, while dancing with Gwen in "Something Borrowed", Jack equates sex with Ianto with recreational activities like eating pizza. When Ianto cuts in to dance with Jack, bringing the relationship fully into public for the first time, Walker claims "it is obvious that Jack only has eyes and thoughts for Gwen"." No one is complaining about Walker on other pages (though the Jack page is questionable - I think that page needs cleaning up and juggling a little - will post my suggestion on that Discussion page). I think if we can rearrange or reword that one sentence, maybe making it the actual quote from Walker rather than a paraphrase and drop the bit about Gwen (good for Jack's page, no so much Ianto's), I think we might get this thing sorted. Although the Walker haters (mostly those he pinched stuff off) will always hate his being used. Me? I like the guy. Don't agree with a lot of his stuff and his way of obtaining info for his books, but I like him. --Clarrisani (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was me who added the information originally not Zythe, so any defensiveness is imaginary. I couldn't give a toss if it has caused controversy in the fandom to be honest, because the fandom's opinion is irrelevant on Wikipedia unless reported on or published. Harsh but true. (Though, out of curiosity, I'd like to know who this "fandom" actually is. Who has actually commented on it and where?) You're still not getting that this article isn't striving to be some kind of canonical biography of the character and his relationships, and that the opinion of third-party sources is crucial.  Paul  730 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I realised after I posted and have since corrected myself. Sorry about that. And we have realised that Wikipedia isn't going for the canon representation of the fandom a while back, we were just hoping for a little more balance. And phrasing is always a good thing to be mindful of. --Clarrisani (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just found this about Wikipedia - "The ideal Wikipedia article is well-written, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge. " That's going to take a while... --Clarrisani (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitratary Break

Just as an aside, this has been brought to my attention. I was wondering how this would apply to Walker. Also this here--Clarrisani (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, Walker would be considered a "questionable source", which is usable in limitations but should not be the sole opinion on the page. In other words, we really need to get some more thoughts on the Ianto/Jack (and any other relationship really) relationship from more people. What I would like to see if the full text from the book. I want to know what Walker is saying, verbatum, because there seems to be a lot of confusion right now. Paraphrasing is the preferred option, but sometimes direct quotes are the best option. As for the Jack/Gwen comparison, again, I point out that he is directly comparing their relationship (or yerning for one) to the relationship between Jack and Ianto. It isn't out of place, it is context. It let's the reader know exactly how Walker interprets Jack's feelings for Ianto.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The passage from the book, since you asked:

One does actually have to feel a little sorry for Ianto here. It is clear that he regards his relationship with Jack as a serious and committed one - when, in "A Day in the Death", Owen implies that it is just about the sex, he replies "It's not like that" - but it is by no means certain that Jack feels the same way. In a comment he makes while dancing with Gwen, Jack even seems to equate having sex with Ianto with eating pizza, suggesting that he sees it as essentially recreational. Even after Ianto cuts in - a significant move for him, as it brings the relationship fully into the open before the rest of the team for the first time - it is obvious Jack only has eyes and thoughts for Gwen.

I have no problem with the info being paraphrased further so that certain sections are direct quotes.  Paul  730 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...interesting. One key phrase that I see in here, but don't recall from the article is "seems to equate". Here, Walker is suggesting, based on Jack's words that he "could be likening his relationship with Ianto to some recreational activity". He doesn't actually say that this is a fact, but merely points out a possibly allusion based on Jack's words. I think that should be made clearer in this article. I would also clarify that it is Walker's opinion that Jack only loves Gwen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the section slightly. Does this solve the problem?  Paul  730 16:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It did, but (and please revert if I've missed the mark) I went ahead and paraphrased the quotes so that it doesn't appear to just copy and paste the text from the book.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured since this info is so contested that a direct quote would be the safer choice, but I don't mind either way. Only thing I'd question in your edit is the "going so far as to suggest that Jack longs for Gwen and not Ianto". I know the fanboys like to turn a blind eye to that storyline because they dislike the pairing, but you really don't have to go very far to see that Jack loves Gwen. It's been a prominent storypoint since episode one and both actors have said their characters are in love with each other. So I don't think Walker is "going so far as to suggest" that there's something going on.  Paul  730 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, looks fine. :) Is "in-love" usually hyphenated like that though?  Paul  730 19:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Got me. Sometimes I use it, and sometimes I don't, depending on the emphasis I am adding. You could remove it and I don't think it would matter much.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's looking a good deal better, guys. It's clear now that it is Walker's opinion, and the wording itself is closer to what he wrote. And I agree with Paul about the Gwen thing - essentially Jack loves both Gwen and Ianto, but the values/beliefs of the time have currently forced him into a situation where he can only choose one (Ianto). Who knows what direction the show will take in future though. Once you're happy with the edit, perhaps it could be duplicated to replace the current comment on Jack's page which is word-for-word what was on Ianto's, if only to maintain consistency over the articles. --Clarrisani (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a copy/paste job of the paraphrase over to there. Take a look. Also, and this is the wrong page for this, but someone might want to think of separating out a "Relationships" subsection for Jack. Anyway, do we really need the RfC still?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Harkness#Relationships. It's being contested, with a couple of good points.  Paul  730 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I am curious as to how eating and work can be construed as a recreational activity and as has been noted above there are issues with the way the SJW information has been presented. In order for the article to be neutral the line that Walker is referencing should be included so that the reader can make up their own mind if Walker is accurate in his statement. According to wikipedia guidelines references such as SJW need to be used sparingly and as the page currently stands it dominates this section. The wording you amended the section to still was a little ambiguous in the reading of it and my points were to try and further clarify the neutrality. Nikki4noo (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dominates the section" is exaggeration. There's only a few sentences which source SJW's book, in a two paragraph section with multiple sources. If you feel it "dominates the section", find more sources to provide wider perspective, don't try to remove or dilute the information already present. It was very clear from your edits that you disagree with Walker's statements. The sentence "even though eating and saving the world are not recreational activities in respect to Jack" read like you were refuting his statement. You might not consider eating pizza as recreational, but Walker clearly makes that analogy and he's the one we're sourcing, not you. If more people feel it necessary to further paraphrase and clarify the information, fine, but Nikki, your edits exhibited clear bias.  Paul  730 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with removing my statement about the reference to Jack but I feel that the line itself needs to go back in so that a reader can make up their own mind. Eating is a necessity for humans in order to survive, "Saving the World" is Jack's job, therefore it is his work and not a recreational activity. SJW has a clear bias towards the Gwen and Jack paring, when you consider that he is the only person to make the claim that Gwen has slept with Jack from her denial to Martha in Reset. As such care is needed when paraphrasing his quotes in this section in relation to Ianto. The way the article reads in relation to the SJW quotes makes them appear more a statement of fact and less that it is only his analysis. As Clarrisani pointed out earlier, wiki policy is for information from people like SJW to be used sparingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikki4noo (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

*Grinds teeth* How many times do we have to explain that Walker, as a published source, is completely entitled to his own bias and opinions about the show? Walker does not lose credibility because he likes to think that Jack and Gwen slept together, that's his interpretation of the material which he is entitled to. You quote Clarrisani in using SJW sparingly when in fact the reason we should use him sparingly has nothing to do with the argument you just presented. He's a questionable source because he works for the company which published his book. It's a technicality which is being used as a scapegoat in this discussion by fanboys who simply disagree with what Walker is saying, and are looking for an excuse to get rid of it. Further more, as Bignole said above, being used sparingly means he shouldn't be the only source in the article which he isn't. There are various, mostly positive, opinions on Jack/Ianto with various sources so any claims that Walker is dominating the article are ludicrous and unfounded.

You keep talking about bias. Well, what about the people gushing on about how great Jack/Ianto are? They're all people involved in the show, like writers or actors. Do you really think they're not biased? Of course not, because they're saying things you want to hear. If anything they're more biased, because they're clearly trying to promote the series in interviews. Obviously they think they make a great couple, because they're trying to get people to watch the show, they're not going to say anything bad about them. To clarify, I'm not saying we shouldn't use those sources, but making claims of "bias" against third parties (who have nothing to gain or lose from their opinions on the subject) is ridiculous if you're not going to make the same claim against people who are obviously biased. The fact is, so long as they provide some commentary on the subject, we can cite their supposedly "biased" opinion in the right context (ie, clarify it as such-and-such's opinion and not fact).

Finally, once again, if people feel more context is needed in the article I am happy to adjust the prose (although, I must point out, several editors here feel it is clear enough). But I am sick and tired of fans arguing against Walker's opinion, both in the article itself and the talk page, and looking for any excuse to remove it. Look, I'm sorry you feel like he bashed your favourite 'ship, but he makes some good points which are valid to this article so just get over it already!  Paul  730 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And how many times do I have to explain to you that he does not "work" for the company, he owns it. Therefore according to wikipedia policy which I have quoted and so did Clarrisani, it means he is a "self-published" author according to their guidelines, regardless of his previous history. I am not a fanboy and I dislike the implication considering I am female for starters and wish the pages to reflect more true information regarding the show and the characters. I agree that he isn't the only source in the section, but there is a perceived implication that his analysis is more valid than any other information when you read it.

Until there is an analysis or other information from other sources that are not self-published then there is only limited information that can be included here. As you quite like the information from SJW as a published source, would you accept fan reactions that he included in his book as 'published works'? Yes you can cite their opinion in the right context, (ie, clarify it as such-and-such's opinion and not fact). but the way the article currently reads the opinion of SJW is appearing as fact and I tried to clean that up to show that it was just his opinion.

The prose needs to be cleared up because it does not, as it stands, read as his opinion but more as fact. Nikki4noo (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, SW is also one of the editors (or directors..I've seen this title associated with him on their website as well). So....yes, he does work there as well. He didn't found Telos. I assume that he probably started out as a regular employee who later bought into the company (as his the "co-owner"...he isn't the outright owner). The article reads as SW's opinion, as it clearly says so. What you want is for every single sentence to begin with "SW states...SW states...SW states", and that's just poor writing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SJW author's page on their website lists him as the co-owner. David Howe's own blog states the he is a co-owner since 2000, not to mention the information listed here in wikipedia itself. A quick google search on Telos Publishing comes up with listing both Howe and Walker as jointly setting up the company together in 2000. He is an owner first and an employee second. Paul's implication was that SJW is just an employee, he is not, he is a co-owner of the company first and foremost and an employee second.

No I do not want every sentence starting with SJW states, but each sentence in that section has to clearly state that it is referencing directly that it is just SJW's opinion. As it currently stands it does not do so and the implication is that some of the information is 'fact' and not an opinion. That is poorly written prose when there is a misconception. Nikki4noo (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Before you make that claim, you might want to read the page again because I adjusted the text since my last comment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think there's a "perceived implication that his analysis is more valid than any other information"? I certainly don't think that, if anything it's everyone else who's getting so upset about it? You say you want the article "to reflect more true information regarding the show and the characters"; that to me implies you want only "canon" information and aren't going to like any analysis which clashes with your perception of canon. All this nonsense about Walker favoring Gwen and Jack, for example.

Oh, and yes, I would accept the fan opinions from the book because they too appear in a published source. Obviously, some specific wording would be needed to identify where the info is coming from, but still. I really don't see how SJW's opinion is coming across as fact when we clearly say it's his opinion. Once again, if you wish to alter the prose, please do so, but without adding your own commentary to the scene.  Paul  730 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Walker is an established Doctor Who analyst. His analysis has been acknowledged and even used by the BBC for the 1963–89 series. Walker isn't just any Doctor Who fan. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In John Barrowman's latest book (I Am What I Am) he has a page where he states what he likes about Captain Jack. One of the things he likes is "His adoration of Ianto"! So there you have it. Jack adores Ianto! Oyster24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

Ianto Jones relationship section

Dispute over whether a viewer's opinions on a character should be used in a factual section about a character and character's relationship. —Queer Scout (via posting script) 15:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: - "Viewer" is actually "Author". The dispute is over whether author Stephen Walker's opinions are relevant, and not some random viewer who happened by Wikipedia and inserted a comment. The commment is from Walker's book. Just to clarify for the sake of making sure any outside opinions misread the statement as if it was an editor who inserted his own personal opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Stephen James Walker is a well-reputed expert on the Dr Who universe, having written a very many books. His factual books would certainly count as WP:RS, however if he is clearly presenting his own opinion it should be noted as such in the article - "According to..." or somesuch.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeDog that the opinion has a place in the article in the way he indicates. As to exactly where it goes, that is a matter of exactly how the article is organised. There is not an inherent reason why it can't go in a factual section (as it is a "fact" that the author holds a particular opinion), but if other observations by different people are placed in another section, then consistency would advocate this one being placed similarly. Ty 02:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead

Nooooooooo! ;_; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So, apart from the episode, any confirmation from the BBC or whoever about this? Any sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What confirmation is neccesary? He died in tonight's episode, you saw it. We'll see if it sticks or not tomorrow night.  Paul  730 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is a sci-fi show. People die and come back to life fairly often.

I know. So watch the next episode and find out.  Paul  730 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. This is an encyclopedia, and I am asking if there has been any official sources, other than the episode itself, which can be cited in the article.

BBC press office say he will be there for episode five.  Cargoking  talk  22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue that the character is currently dead. But we do now have an infobox in this article which states Ianto's last appearance is in this miniseries and we have nothing to back that up. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, do we have anything to say he'll be back? The source we *do* have, the show itself, says that this character is dead! As I've said below, any character could come back in any show/comic/franchise so shall we start wiping their boxes too? The best source we have says he's dead, so that's what an "always up to date" encyclopaedia should say.TMLS (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm agreement with the dead thing, as far as the plots concerned he's dead, we're not making any assumptions on that. My only gripe is with the bit that says that this is the final appearance of this character. If we say this, without having some sort of reference that the character has been written off, or the actor who plays him no longer wishes to appear, then we're making an assumption that because he's died, this must be the character's last appearance and assumptions are unencyclopeadic. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have also amended Tosh & Owen then as we can't be sure that they won't make an appearance in future either. 90.217.107.144 (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of worrying about this when the last episode is in less than 24 hours. And I doubt the BBC will spoil it before the last episode airs. Ianto's appearance in "Day Five" could be as a corpse or flashback, or he could be resurrected like Owen. Who knows, let's just wait and see. Also, the "last appearance" thing shouldn't be there, I'm removing it.  Paul  730 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

that link up there lists the same actors every single day of the series. i know most of them appear every day but don't you think somebody just copied and pasted? they may have not been told that Ianto would be killed. 86.157.203.231 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst characters come back all the time in Sci Fi, the fact is he's dead in the show. If we didn't put death in until later we may as well not put any Sci Fi character's death in. Face it, the canon is that he's dead so the article should reflect that. If he's resurrected tonight, it can be changed back - but you can't just leave it on what's basically a hope or an assumption.TMLS (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If he is brought back to life, then the death will still remain on record as part of the characters history. Therefore it is an important point that the section is there. If he does come back to life in some future season we can rename it temporary death.CaptainJackWest (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If Ianto Jones can't be considered to have had a "Final Appearance" then neither can Owen or Tosh, surely (User:90.217.107.144) - odd point. Weren't T and O confirmed in Confidential as having made their last appearances as they could foresee it? Still, I suppose the actors could always return for radio plays or some sort of flashback/dream sequence.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well he didn't come back in episode 5, so I think we can put Children of Earh as the final story now. If he does feature in a flashback or something that can be added later if it actually happens - it may not. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we be sensible here? He's dead - so unlikely to come back. It he does, you can change it. It's rather silly not to have it. If your going to be silly, then you can't have Last appearance for ANY character. Adric could feature in a flashback in Waters of Mars. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a fan of "final appearances" being in the infobox. It should be obvious from the article prose when the character last appeared. And unlike first appearances, which are set in stone, last appearances are debatable and changeable. Say Ianto appears in a Torchwood comic, does that replace CoE as his last appearance? If not, why not? What about stock footage in a later episode? Or photographs of the character? Whereas first appearances are notable because they introduced the character, last appearances are irrelevant because the character is never going to stop appearing.  Paul  730 05:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's more of a discussion of "Last appearance" in general - you could say the same of any character in Doctor Who (or indeed, any show). Almost every single companion in Doctor Who has appeared as a flashback at some point (Resurrection of the Daleks showed all the ones at that point) so is Susan's last story really The Five Doctors?. it's a bit silly to leave it open on the oof change that he will one day appear in stock footage or a flashback when we don't do that for anyone else (same for comics). So if we have the "Last appearance" thing, then it should be no different here to anywhere else (that is -have it) and if we don't want it, then remove it altogether from EVERYONE and not just here. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people are confusing the concept of last appearance. If he re-appears later in stock footage that does not count as a last appearance, in deed anytime re-using old-footage doesn't count. If, however, they film new footage that takes place in the past or a flashback... Then indeed the new last appearance is the new footage, however it is also customary to make a note of chronological last appearance, in which case "Children of Earth: Day Four" would remain as the last appearance. If Ianto comes back as a ghost or zombie -- which is looking unlikely based on interviews -- then the last appearance gets edited, until that happens, however, you list the death as it currently is. Additionally, if Gareth comes back to play a different character, then that also does not affect the last appearance.

Also, Ianto appearing in comics or other media also doesn't count. Why? Because this article is primarily about Ianto Jones as he appears in the show. The canon of the comics and books of any Dr. Who related franchise has always been uncertain. The only canon set in stone - till it's ret-coned - is the TV show. But again, if you want to include them, Children of Earth: Day Four is still his chronological last appereance (in the show) as that's when he died and what the final appearance section refers to).24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comics or other media don't count? That's biased. You're playing the canon card, which is totally irrelevant on Wikipedia because we don't deal in continuity and canon, we write from a real-world perspective. I still don't see why "last appearances" are at all notable; first appearances are notable because they mark the character's creation and introduction, what's so important about the "last" appearance?

This isn't really the right place to discuss this because I'm not just talking about Ianto, but all fictional characters.  Paul  730 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Paul on this matter, and the solution I found with Buffy articles (where characters have last appearances in each of two shows, but then reappear canonically in other media) was to remove the infobox. A well-written article should discuss the so-called "last appearance" in the context of what this meant, and for how long. And then discuss a re-introduction, if ever they came back (whether that happens or not is irrelevant to the issue, so bare with me). But a "last appearance" is silly, because fictional characters aren't real people. They're created/introduced by real people, that's real world-information. Still, it's quite a moot point (apart from in principle) with this article (unlike K-9, where editors insist on listing four separate last (read: most recent) appearances).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Source

Just leaving this source here for later use. Gareth David-Lloyd compares his character to Alfred.  Paul  730 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

SaveIantoJones.com

I understand editing out the soapboxing, but why can't this site be used for a source? If sites like "Den of Geek" can be used, why not this one? If you're going to put up the negative press has said against these people, you should balance it out with what they have actually said themselves. Also, doesn't it say on the section not to edit it until its been discussed first?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollapopzalla (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a self-published fan site whereas Den of Geek is a real and reliable website. Also, the edit changed the dates and figures as seen in a BBC source to one not attributed to anything. We should balance it out, but only using reliable sources. You'll see I think ALL the information found by Google News searching "Ianto Jones" has been incorporated, regardless of its position. I am not on a particular side of the fence and I do not have a particular POV. I treat fictional characters as fictional characters. Simply adding stuff without an attributable source actually defiles the article and takes it back several steps from a GA.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated the information from this Wales Online article. This is the sort of thing Wikipedia is allowed to cite.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ianto Jones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SuperMarioMan 19:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I have been bold and run through the text to correct all prose issues that I could detect. The article reads quite well and most of its content appears sound. Outstanding problems remain with MoS adherence:
     • The lead section could do with expansion — the second paragraph of the two present consists of in-universe detail, while one sentence (i.e. Such was the character's popularity within the series that when Ianto was killed off in the programme's third television series in 2009, it provoked much fan unrest and critical commentary.) seems insufficient for summarising such a detailed reception section at the end of the article. At least one additional paragraph could be added.
       • Done! It was tricky not giving anything undue weight simply because it required careful and/or specific wording, but I think I did a good job.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
     • "Creation" and "Conception" are rather synonymous — could one or other be used as the subsection title?
       • Fixed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
     • Torchwood as a television series requires italics on each occasion that its name appears, including in titles of citations (e.g. reference 8).
       • Fixesd I believe (manual, no AWP luxury here).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
     • With regard to numbering individual seasons, the text frequently switches from upper to lower case. Is it "Series One" or "series one", for example? If capitalisation is used for series numbers, should it also be Children of Earth: "Part One" ("Day One"?), or something else?
       • Where it's used as "part one", "part two", that's not in violation. "Part One" would be incorrect, but I think a decision between Children of Earth, "Day Four" and Children of Earth: "Day Four" is purely stylistic as long as it is consistent. To that end, I've made it consistent apart from one usage in quote marks. Small case looks better.
     • At the end of quotations, punctuation is placed either before or after the quotation mark, with much variation within paragraphs. The positioning should preferably be uniform throughout the text. Quotation marks have been shifted from curved to straight in accordance with the guideline at WP:MOSQUOTE.
       • Going to AWP this tonight -- I think that should do a CU?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
     • I would recommend a thorough check of the list of references, in particular to ensure that dates are displayed in a consistent format — digits are used in most instances, although days and months are written out elsewhere (e.g. reference 25). Furthermore, since Torchwood is a British topic, the expectation would, in the event that dates are printed in full, be that months follow days (reference 36 does the opposite). Numbers 46, 56 and 57 mix the two, and the public reaction subsection in the main text uses month/day/year on three occasions.
       • Tonight with a print-out.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
     • Episode citations also throw up some inconsistencies (e.g. "BBC", "BBC Three" and "BBC Two" are all listed as broadcasters — the first option would be best). Linking production names/credits in each citation seems excessive: if linked once, and in the first instance of a particular name, the presention could be improved (e.g. Torchwood does not need formatting each time it appears). Parameters display as broken in references such as 3 and 4.

   • • With regards to the broadcast network, BBC3 and BBC2 and BBC One all say very different things with regards to production, content, reception, expectation, budget, etc.! That's why it has been made specific. I will amend all Children of Earth citations to read "BBC One", as we long since past the age of plain "BBC" and "BBC2".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 08:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   • • Are page numbers available for references 26 and 30, in the manner that 48 (also from the magazine) has more citation parameters filled? Reference 31 uses different formatting, and abbreviations such as "W" (writer?) should ideally be written out in full. On the subject of internet sources (e.g. AfterElton.com), names of websites should appear unitalicised in citations. Domain names are used for some websites but not others (e.g. io9, Digital Spy, Wales Online) — again, a consistent method of presentation is desirable. Reference 37 would benefit from additional source information besides page title and access date.
       • Print outs for a clear look.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • All points are attributed if required, no original research, sources appear reliable. However, presentation of the sources (as noted in previous point) is a problem at this time.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • A range of in-universe, outside production and outside reception information is provided. No clear-cut cases of excessive or irrelevant detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • The article strives for a consistent neutral tone, and the reception sections offer a balanced treatment.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • Definitely stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • No problems here. The one fair-use image is necessary for identification as part of the infobox.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

In terms of content, there are no problems that I can perceive. However, the reference list is in need of clean-up and the introduction would better meet the guidelines of the MoS with some lengthening — I do not think that the current lead text steps up to the challenge of outlining the whole of the article that comes after it, and with equal weight to all sections. Since the page is (I believe) close to GA standard, I will place this nomination on hold for one week. If clarification is needed on some of the points that I have raised, feel free to ask either at this review or on my talk page. SuperMarioMan 03:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I will get on them just as soon as I get work done here.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 08:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of the last figdety points is tonight.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is now greatly improved — a much better summary of the article's content. On the subject of capitalisation for series numbering, lower case indeed seems preferable given the standard used in the Doctor Who series articles. SuperMarioMan 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've now put through those final edits!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the article now reaches the standards, and as such am passing it. Congratulations! SuperMarioMan 12:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ianto Jones. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=2719
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104231040/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article1919243.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article1919243.ece

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) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ianto Jones. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312031457/http://www.afterelton.com/blog/lylemasaki/latest-torchwood-radio-play-delivers-for-janto-fans-captain-jack-harkness-ianto-jones to http://www.afterelton.com/blog/lylemasaki/latest-torchwood-radio-play-delivers-for-janto-fans-captain-jack-harkness-ianto-jones
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725233520/http://www.afterelton.com/blog/michaeljensen/russell-t-davies-answers-the-question to http://www.afterelton.com/blog/michaeljensen/russell-t-davies-answers-the-question
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227015815/http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/2/garethdavidlloyd to http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/2/garethdavidlloyd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726113734/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/features/article_1420508.php to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/features/article_1420508.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607131137/http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2009/10/death-torchwood-queer-visibility to http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2009/10/death-torchwood-queer-visibility

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) 04:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ianto Jones. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423044946/http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2010/04/torchwoods-ianto-jones-brought.html to http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2010/04/torchwoods-ianto-jones-brought.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/07/24/backlash-shmacklash-thats-torchwood-creator-russell-t-davies-reaction-to-the-outcry-over-the-death-of-gareth-david-lloyds/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68B7t4Row?url=http://gaynz.com/articles/publish/37/article_8565.php to http://gaynz.com/articles/publish/37/article_8565.php
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68i2OlooK?url=http://www.endofshow.com/2009/07/12/torchwood-children-of-earth-the-aftermath/ to http://www.endofshow.com/2009/07/12/torchwood-children-of-earth-the-aftermath/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090807040816/http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/07/should-ianto-be-revived-fans-a.html to http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/07/should-ianto-be-revived-fans-a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205223114/http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/ianto/ to http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/ianto/

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) 02:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)