Talk:Jack Harkness/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Jack Harkness. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is it right to call the doctor older?

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

That's a recent development. Anyway, it still stands in terms of meaning, or should it be changed for pedantic accuracy?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the way it is currently written makes it clear that it is referring to his initial travels with the Doctor.--Trystan (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

jack IS boe

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

I agree with you, but we can't theorise in the actual article as that would violate the policy Wikipedia: No original research. Paul730 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. Feel free to compile a compelling argument for it at Tards Index File, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this anal-retentiveness the epitome of why Wikipedia is a failure. Watch Last of the Time-Lords, people. It's there in dialogue. Jack is Boe. There is no debate nor is there original research involved. End of story. Full stop. <shrek>See you later.</shrek> If Davies didn't intend it he would never have written it, and if he didn't want it, he calls the shots, he could have removed it. He didn't, so there for it is what it is. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what your problem is. The episode implied it, and so does the article. It's not like we're ignoring it or something, it's mentioned. Look, I agree with you that Jack is Boe, I agree that Davis wouldn't have bothered writing it if he didn't intent it to mean what it implied. But that doesn't mean we need a "Jack = Boe" fancruft essay in the article. It's a minor aspect of the Jack Harkness character, and is treated as such. What do you expect? Paul 730 08:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, Helen Raynor dismissed this theory playfully. So we're being neutral too. The whole thing was a gag really. Alientraveller (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What more information do we need? The article is inexplicit and the sufficient sources are attached for you to make your mind up.~Zythe^{Talk to me!}17:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is debated why does the Face of Boe article state it as a fact, that page mentions it was confirmed at Comic Con 2008. Maybe this new information should be added. Tordre (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you actually look, there's an extremely recent RTD quote on the subject which captures the entire argument. It's an intentional ambiguity. We as fans are not here to "solve" it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind could you link to said quote. It is not that I don't trust you it is just I cannot find it anywhere Tordre (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At the end of "Development", [1].~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Also, I've added an image of Boe (free image) to the article to accompany the real-world information about the connection; there is no motive to suppress whether or not Jack is Boe (it does not matter and I do not care), simply an adherence to Wikipedia policy and not stretching beyond the sourced information and the textual information.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relationships

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

A relationships section would be totally fine given the fact we have quite a bit of information specific to that. However, prose is preferable to listing things in bullet points. Something similar to Clark Kent (Smallville)#Relationships or the other Smallville character articles. Paul 730 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing that makes this article so good compared to other fictitious character articles is that it is written as a real article, with things mentioned in the most appropriate place with citations showing they are significant. I think a relationship section would either useless duplicate information, or would be less readable by moving all the relahip info into a disonnected section. It is also likely to become a cruft-list of all his insignifican encounters eg. Spike_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer) is in prose, but goes into great detail about every interaction he had with every character in the show. Too much information! Better as it is imo.Yobmod (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article DID have something like that ages ago, when it was a terrible fannish thing. The focus since became on portrayals, actor opinion, critical interpretation and production team intentions. This is much more suited to Wikipedia purposes. The only problems with devoting an entire subsection to relationships might be these: that they are entirely summarised, and more detail would require in-universe story explanations which are supposed to be scarce. The other would be that Jack's relationships are so tied to the critical attention paid to the character's unique qualities that it would be forcing a divide between "Jack loves the other Jack" (in-universe, supposes the reader should ask 'So what?') and "Critics note Jack can uniquely portray modern attitudes to same-sex sexuality in period settings because he is a time traveller", when the two thoughts work best in conjunction.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are citing Clark as an example, or any of the Smallville related pages, it would be good to note (given Yobmod's and Zythe's points) is that those sections in the Smallville articles are comprised entirely of reliably sourced analysis of those relationship. It isn't a place where they just list everyone someone has had a relationship with, but where crew members and other professionals give their opinions on those relationships. So, it's entirely "real world", and I make pains to keep unnecessary in-universe info out of there. The in-universe aspect of it should already be covered in the plot description section, so you shouldn't have to repeat yourselves in a "Relationship" section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack's a whore though, so there's going to be fans wanting us to mention Soldier #3 and all the other characters he's shagged over the years. ;) Which is what the old version of the article actually did. I in no way support something similar to the Spike page, but a relationships subsection might be a nice way to break up the every-growing Development section. Zythe, it all falls under Characterisation anyway so we wouldn't have to divide anything. We actually have about two paragraphs of all-relationship info that could probably be made into a subsection quite neatly by just sticking a title over it. Paul 730 23:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Retitle it to something along the lines of "Relationship analysis" or whatever...anything so that it is clearer that the only thing wanted is reliably sourced, real world content. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved things around so now we have a relationships section. Zythe, Yobmod, what do you think? "Relationships" should suffice as a title, if anyone starts to add the cruft we can just remove it. Paul 730 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine for now. Maybe some editor's notes to explain that it is not an exhaustive list of the character's relationships? If we need to, anyway. Should Estelle Cole be mentioned perhaps in the Torchwood Season One paragraph, maybe, as that was a sort of 'revelation' when it originally aired? I wouldn't know how to shoehorn it in.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

SJW is a published author (he has published far more books than just this one being used, and ones that were not published by Telos). Personal blogs are the same as books, even ones that are published by someone who co-owns the publishing house. As a matter of fact, the key term in that is Telos is a "Publishing House". They publish books. The fact that they published a book by one of their co-owners (who already has a history of authored texts) is not the same as someone publishing some random blogger's opinion. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is a published author, but that book comes under the clarification as a self-published work according to wiki policy. I do agree that Telos is a publishing house and they publish books, most people who can pay to have their own works published do so through publishing houses... According to wiki policy it is still a self published book, a persons history is not taken into account in respect to the work. There can be a perceived bias by the editors of the book being mindful that they are editing the work of their employer. Wiki states that a self published book can be quoted, as has been done here, and so can some "random blogger's opinion" according to that same policy. Nikki4noo (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SJW's book is a published source. The fact he apparently works for the publishing company makes it questionable but still usable, and might I add it is a technicality people who disagree with Walker are exploiting as a scapegoat against his opinions. A published book it not the same as some random fan's blog. If Eve Myles mentioned it on her own blog, I might be okay with using it but unless we have some kind of published evidence of her statement I don't think we can use it? (I'd appreciate more opinions on this from those savvy with Wiki-policy).

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

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

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

If other people are reporting on their personal blogs of what Eve says, and there is no other source reporting what she says, then it's all hearsay. The problem is, even if you have 20 people reporting the same thing, you cannot guarantee that they aren't all reporting it because they read it on each other's blogs. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy states that we can use what was on the blogs, just as you can use self-published information. I agree that it can be considered heresay, but the policy says that it can be included. Nikki4noo (talk)

I don't believe that that is what the policy is stating, but you are free to actually consult that talk page and ask for their input on the subject. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:V states that the blogs to be avoided are "personal and group blogs. Some newspapers and other periodicals host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the organization's full editorial control." So no, I don't think fan blogs would be usable in any circumstances. Oh, and I apologise if you found the whore comment offensive, but John Barrowman himself admits that Jack just "sleeps around" so I think you're making a mountain out a molehill tbh. Paul 730 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, if I cite what is said at a Q&A session or panel at a convention, and can provide a link to video of the event, would it be counted? Just wondering for future. --Clarrisani (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends. If it's from YouTube, or some other public uploading site then you cannot. Most of that stuff is illegally uploaded, and YouTube doens't remove it unless someone comes to them directly and tells them to (usually they don't realize it is up there). Secondly, because the uploader to such work could delete it themselves and we'd lose the source, it makes YouTube a difficult and unreliable source to use. Text that is published and deleted can be found again through the internet archives, but videos have to still be uploaded for us to view them. That's why it is best to always find a reliable transcript of video interviews, or at least hope to find a reliable website that publishes the video that you know won't necessarily take the video down (something like a major news agency, or something). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking so much if we could link to the YouTube video more than if cite the convention itself and link to the video here on the Talk page to prove that the comment was in fact made (and most of us hardcore Torchwood fans have the videos saved anyway - I get mine from another member of the John Barrowman fan club), would it prove that the primary source does in fact exist? --Clarrisani (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you right, you want to cite the "conversation" itself on the article page, but link to the YouTube videon on the talk page four our benefit? That wouldn't fly in any type of formal review. You need an actual published sourced that has the interview. Now, if that source is reliable and has a video clip as well...great. If that source is YouTube, then you cannot use it. There must be a reliable source that we can point any editor to, so that they can verify the information. If the only reliable source is a YouTube video, then it cannot be used. I don't know what the video is, but if it's some formal interview, I'm sure there is someone out there that has commented on the actual interview. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If I understand right, it wasn't a formal interview so much as the actress talking at a convention, which a bunch of fans have recorded themselves. Paul 730 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Actually, in my experience most of the conventions do not have a reporter (or at least one that reports the event). I was think more along the lines of citing the source as the actor/director/writer, then listing the convention itself. --Clarrisani (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Something needs to be published. Otherwise it is hearsay. How can we verify that what you (or anyone) is saying is true? If the video to the convention is ever removed then we wouldn't be able to verify said statements. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Anon, that doesn't mean that he must concede to others either. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but currently he is rejecting the suggestions without question and blocking the views of others because he does not agree with them. This is also the case with a couple of other members of this discussion, but Paul 730 seems to be doing so because he feels he knows what is best for the article and no one else can suggest otherwise. I am suggesting he discuss more openly the possible other interpretations of various references and topics seen here instead of simply relying on his own opinion and views about what is right. Also, if the other editors do not concede, there will be a dispute and it would best for compromise to be reached on behalf of both parties, else a third party will need to be involved to settle it. --121.219.8.170 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that he is doing that at all, given that he has taken quite a bit of what Clarrisani has said into consideration (the user who initiated this discussion) and actually made amendments to the article to compromise on the issue. Even Clarrisani agreed with some of the changes...so exactly where are you getting this "blocking the views of others"? He clearly has demonstrated actions to the contrary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Russell T Davies image

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

Is that that big image I saw when I was tweaking the Jack/Ianto thing? If so, then I have to agree. Just because he conceived the character doesn't necessarily mean we need an image of him. If it was some image of him actually conceiving the character at that moment, then it would probably hold enough connection to warrant inclusion. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and just remove it. Paul 730 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I quite liked the image. It seems quite natural to me when discussing fiction to show the creator, particularly when he is being quoted.--Trystan (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you show him on everything he's ever created? It is kind of redundant to see his same mug on every character that he's ever created. It seemed more to me like it was just there to take up space. With the quote boxes there, I don't feel like there is just a bombardment of text with no breather.

Not everything, but on a character as prominent as Jack, where the creative process is a central part of the article, I think its a good fit. The text boxes help, but the article is still quite wall-of-textish.--Trystan (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the image is in a section that discusses Davies creating the character or quotes him, i think it is ok. Not great, but as a free image in a fiction article, i don't think it harms it either. Neutral about adding it back or removing it.Yobmod (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

GA Reassessment

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

GA Sweeps: Pass

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

Accent

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

I would guess it's because it's the actor's own accent. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While it has no place on the article, assumedly because the Boeshane Peninsula is a North American colony in the future. But why couldn't there be an American-accented character in a British show, simply because they're American? Well, excusing the terrible example of Demons.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is "because the character is American." --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The character isn't American, he's from the Boeshane Peninsula - but I don't see a need to explain it, we don't explain the accents of the Doctor or other off-worlders... do we? Well... I guess there was the whole thing about "Lots of planets have a North". PoisonedPigeon (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the accent is only an issue for Americans, who appear to be unable to handle having non-Americans as leading characters in their TV shows [many of whom are Brits forced to adopt an American accent for the role].

213.206.7.50 (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

History

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

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

lead and television appearances problems

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

Captain Jack Harkness is a fictional character in Doctor Who and its 2006 spin-off series, Torchwood . He first appears in the 2005 Doctor Who episode "The Empty Child" and reappears in the remaining episodes of the 2005 series as a companion of the ninth incarnation of the Doctor. Captain Jack returns in the 2007 series of Doctor Who, reuniting with the tenth incarnation of the Doctor, and again for the 2008 series. He becomes a central character in the adult themed Torchwood. His character is played by the Scots actor John Barrowman.
Jack is a time traveller and con man from the 51st century. In contrast to the Doctor, he is a man of action, more willing to apply a hands-on, rather than a cerebral, solution to a problem. In the 2005 Doctor Who series finale, Jack becomes immortal. He eventually becomes the leader of Torchwood, an organisation dedicated to collecting and understanding alien technology. An ambiguous backstory is gradually revealed in the course of both series, adding another layer of complexity to the character.
A bisexual, Jack is the first openly non-heterosexual character of the televised Doctor Who and Jack Harness’ popularity amongst multiple demographics influences the development of Torchwood. As an ongoing depiction of bisexuality in mainstream British television, the character has become a role model for young gay and bisexual people in the UK, rapidly increasing John Barrowman’s fame. Captain Jack Harness is featured in the pages of various Doctor Who and Torchwood books, as well as in action figures created in Barrowman’s likeness.
Television
Jack Harkness first appears in two 2005 Doctor Who episodes "The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances" when he rescues Rose (Billie Piper), a companion of the Ninth Doctor (Christopher Eccleston), during the Blitz. Although posing as an American volunteer in the Royal Air Force, Jack actually is a former "Time Agent" from the 51st century. A con man, he has unwittingly released a plague on 20th century London. After the Doctor cures the plague, Jack redeems himself by taking an unexploded bomb into his ship; the Doctor and Rose rescue him moments before his ship explodes.[1][2] He subsequently remains on the TARDIS with them. During their travels,[3][4][5] Jack matures into a more heroic and complex character,[6] and in his final 2005 appearance, he dies fighting the Daleks. While suffused with the power of the time vortex, Rose destroys the Daleks, saves the Doctor, and resurrects Jack.
The character returns in 2006 in the spin-off series Torchwood. Literally a changed man,[8] Jack has became immortal after his resurrection. He has spent years on Earth waiting for the Doctor, who he hopes will explain his immortality. In the meantime, he has assembled a team, the Cardiff-based Torchwood Three, to fight alien threats. As the series opens, Jack recruits policewoman Gwen Cooper (Eve Myles) to his team of scientists, to give them more heart and compassion;[9] there are hints of romantic feelings between the two,[10] but Gwen has a fiancé and Jack enters a sexual relationship with the team’s general factotum Ianto Jones (Gareth David-Lloyd).[11] Over the course of the season, his colleagues discover that he cannot die; [12] they learn that "Jack Harkness" is an alias taken from a deceased Second World War airman;[13] that Jack was once a prisoner of war;[13] and, finally, as an interrogator, he tortured prisoners.[14] The episode "Small Worlds" introduces Jack's wartime lover Estelle Cole (Eve Pearce), as an old woman; she highlights the tragedy of Jack’s dilemma of immortality and lays the ground work for future complications.[15] In the Torchwood Series One finale "End of Days",[16] Jack “crosses over” to the 2007 Doctor Who episode "Utopia", where he meets the Tenth Doctor (David Tennant) and his companion Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman). By the Doctor Who finale, having spent a year in an alternate timeline, Jack opts to return to his team in Cardiff. Before leaving Martha and the Doctor, Jack speculates about his immortality and reminiscences about a nickname from his youth on the Boeshane Peninsula, suggesting that he may one day become the mysterious "Face of Boe" (a recurring Doctor Who series character voiced by Struan Rodger).[18][19]
In 2008, as Torchwood Series Two begin, Jack finds his teammates have continued the work without him.[20][21] They are also more insistent to learn of his past, especially after meeting his former partner, the unscrupulous Captain John Hart (James Marsters).[22] The episode "Adam" explores Jack's childhood in the Boeshane Peninsula, revealing through flashbacks how his father (Demetri Goritsas) died and young Jack (Jack Montgomery) lost his younger brother Gray (Ethan Brooke) during an alien invasion.[23] The series' penultimate episode, "Fragments", depicts Jack's capture by Torchwood in the late 19th century. Initially a prisoner, he is coerced into becoming a freelance agent for the organisation, and eventually becomes the leader of Torchwood Three at midnight on 1 January 2000.[24] The series finale features the return of Captain John and Jack's brother Gray (Lachlan Nieboer), who, after a lifetime of torture by aliens, wants revenge on Jack. Gray kills his teammates Toshiko (Naoko Mori) and Owen (Burn Gorman).[25] Jack eventually places Gray in cryogenic stasis, and repairs his friendship with Captain John. In two-part crossover finale of the 2008 Doctor Who series, "The Stolen Earth", the Doctor summons Jack, Martha and a former companion Sarah Jane Smith (Elisabeth Sladen) to face Davros (Julian Bleach), creator of the evil Daleks.[26] Jack parts from the Doctor once again, having helped save the universe from destruction.[27]
The five-part Children of Earth[28][29] (Torchwood (2009)) explores the relationship of humans and their children. The mysterious 456 announces it is coming to earth. Civil servant John Frobisher (Peter Capaldi) inexplicably orders the destruction of Torchwood.[30] Jack is killed in an explosion, but painfully reconstitutes from an incomplete pile of body parts; Gwen and Ianto escape and later rescue Jack from a concrete grave; Jack’s daughter, Alice (Lucy Cohu) and his grandson Steven (Bear McCausland) are kidnapped by the assassins.[31] The 456 demand ten percent of the world's children. Flashbacks reveal Jack's involvement in the surrender of twelve children to the 456 in 1965.[32] In response to the present threat, Jack and Ianto refuse to give up any children. The 456 releases a virus; Ianto dies in Jack's arms.[33] To create the signal that will destroy the 456, Jack sacrifices Steven. Six months later, having lost his lover, his grandson, and his daughter, he bids farewell to Gwen, and is transported in a light beam to an alien ship, leaving Earth for parts unknown.[34] Jack is expected to appear in an unknown capacity in the 2009 Christmas specials of Doctor Who, which will also mark the exit of the Tenth Doctor.[35]

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

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

The prose edit is underway at User:Zythe/Jack_Harkness to keep the main page stable. I am going through your version and I find a lot of the changes are personal taste, and perhaps confusing. I'm developing a happy medium.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Origins of name

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

Not that I'm aware of. It might well be a coincidence.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)/

I've seen some fans/forums/blogs mention it, but that's it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the name Harkness is a reference to the nanny employed by Reed Richards [the stretchey Mr Fantastic of the Fantastic Four], whose name is Agatha Harkness and a Witch [i think].

213.206.7.50 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible origin of name

There is a Captain Jack Harkness in an issue of Thrilling Wonder Stories (1949 Vol.35 #1), a sci-fi pulp fiction magazine. He appears in the novelette by Wallace West entitled, "The Lure of Polaris". He travels from planet to planet instantaneously via a teleportation machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.114.132 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2009‎ (UTC)

Verifiability Issue

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

See Stephen James Walker for details. DonQuixote (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He's a prolific commentator and an expert in the field, as I think was the conclusion reached on some other article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone from outside the 'field' needs to comment on the verifiability of this source. His wiki page supports the evidence that he is a self-publicist, which does not make him an 'expert', but simply a commentator. --60.230.74.98 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Article size

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

Why the uniform matters

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

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

While I would hesitate to call the above noted revisions 'stupid', I am forced to agree with the general thrust of *jb's argument. In my view, there are two logical positions which one can adopt on this matter: either a) the rank insignia on Captain Jack's costume is irrelevant, in which case it should be omitted entirely or b) it is relevant, in which case it should be described accurately. In neither case should the original version be allowed to stand as it not only lacks secondary sourcing but was, in fact, made up by some Wikipedia writer out of thin air.

As to the prohibition on original research, I do understand and appreciate this rule, however I fail to see its relevance to this discussion. The article on No Original Research says, and I quote, 'In short, stick to the sources.' In this case, there are hundreds of photographs, all over the web, which clearly show Jack's rank insignia in the episodes in question (one of which I linked to in my original revision). If an episode of Doctor Who is not to be considered a reliable source as to what happened on Doctor Who, then what is a reliable source on this subject? Or do you, perhaps, mean that the RAF itself is a subject of such obscurity that only an unsourcable expert at the cutting edge of military science would know the difference between a Sqn Ldr and a Gp Cap? I mean I'm sure you're not making this argument, so let's leave it at that. Dreadnought1906 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not our place to quibble about uniforms and ranks, even if it is wrong. If there was an interview or commentary where one of the shows' makers discussed the difference, we would have a reason to mention it, something which proved the issue has been acknowledged elsewhere and is notable. If we are the only ones to report on it, then that is quite literally original research. I assumed (since the article is otherwise well-sourced) that the Group Captain sentence had a secondary source, but it didn't and I agree it shouldn't be there. It's a TV show and they probably just picked a rank and uniform they thought sounded/looked cool and sexy without putting much thought into it. There's no need to mention it at all. Paul 730 22:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, in this instance, the detail in question is very minor and the article is probably not at all hurt by its redaction. On the the general principle of primary sources, however, the No Original Research article makes it clear that primary sources are an acceptable basis for assertions in Wikipedia, as long as those primary sources are generally available for examination by other editors. Indeed, if primary sources were unacceptable, you would not be able to cite anything from commentaries or interviews, as you suggest, as these are both types of primary sources. In fact, the original (and erroneous) statement that Jack was wearing a Gp Cap uniform in his first two appearances was cited to the TV episodes in question. This is a good example of how primary sources can be checked for accuracy by other Wikipedians; I saw the same episodes and was able to spot that there had been an error. If you still feel that TV episodes should not be used as a primary source by Wikipedia, then by all means put forward an argument for their exclusion. You might want to examine, if you choose to do so, footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 in this article. All are references to episodes of Doctor Who or Torchwood, used as primary sources for the article on Jack Harkness. Dreadnought1906 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, quibbling about uniforms is about as productive as quibbling about TARDISes -- the events of the programme are fictitious and in no way have to correspond one-to-one to our own world. So unless a secondary source mentions it, it's not notable. DonQuixote (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the differences are not important unless some third-party sources start discussing the differences of the uniform (in which case, it would probably be more appropriate for the TV series' page than for Jack's page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Mortality

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

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

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

- And it all ended up being moot, anyway as the conclusion to Miracle Day restored status quo. Did anyone think Jack would remain mortal forever? 68.146.80.110 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead Links

I did a quick check on this article for any dead links, which showed a few results. I managed to fix a couple that were already archived on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and found an alternate site for another link but cannot find another version of links 93 and 35. 93 can probably be removed completely without any detrimental impact as it exists in a reference cluster.

I found the same quotes attributed to reference 35 in an article on examiner.com but that site is blacklisted by wikipedia. Eshlare (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Gr, Internet. It remembers your personal information forever, but loses interesting articles.Zythe (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Face of Boe error

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

Actually, it quite clearly states he first appeared in "The End of the World", so that sentence is redundant. Also the line about the "status quo remains" is original research on your part and would need a source. Sorry. — Edokter (talk) — 15:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry,i don't think that episode came out. or am i wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Harkness Test

Jacks sexual flexibility has lead to his name being used to label a test for 'sexual correctness'. "The Harkness Test" as it is called, is a guideline to evaluade if an individuum is an acceptable partner for intercourse. Its very intresting what the test asks for, and maybe even more intresting what it doesnt ask for. The questions are as follows: "Does the creature have intelligence similar to a human or higher?" "Can it communicate by language or otherwise?" "Is it of sexual maturity for its species?" If the answer to all three is 'yes' then its an acceptable partner. If one answer is no or if the questions cant be answered, then you are adviced to stay away.

This test is widely known and it might be an intresting addition to the "Critical reception and impact" chapter. Maybe just a line like "The 'Harkness test' is named after him" or something. 83.216.251.45 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's widely known, then there should be a reliable source that we can cite. Please provide one. DonQuixote (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Its a joke. What source would there be? Anyway, just wanted to mention it. If you dont want to add it, just dont :) 83.216.251.45 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Harkness as False ID

Capt. Jack Harkness is identified as an RAF pilot who is lost in action, while the Barrowman character assumes the name. This point in never mentioned in the article, but strikes me as of some significance in understanding the character, whose real name we never hear (unless I missed his brother using it). Tham153 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I kind of agree. It should probably be mentioned somewhere even in a minor capacity that it's an alias. TardisTybort (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

New Audio Series from Big Finish

Just announced. Worth including at some stage. Sounds like all six dramas will form a single story Eshlare (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/torchwood

Included the announcement. TardisTybort (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What about Ace?

It's mentioned in the article (and the lead) that Jack is the first non-heterosexual character in the show's history. However, in the Ace article, it's mentioned (and sourced) that she is, with Rona Munro (who wrote Survival) saying so. This next point does fall under OR, but The Doctor also says "[the cheetah people] can be dangerously... attractive". It's clear to me Ace is bisexual and therefore Jack's second. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ace's bisexuality was not overt and never actually specifically mentioned, and as there is a lack of other bisexual moments can be chalked up purely to the cheetah people's influence. The Munro interview also clearly states that is was MUNRO'S subtext because of her political leanings, not necessarily Ace's. Jack Harkness is the first openly non-heterosexual character, which the opening clearly states (it says "openly non-heterosexual" not just "non-heterosexual"). Vyselink (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jack Harkness. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jack Harkness. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080128091314/http://www.afterelton.com:80/print/2008/1/tenbestscificharacters?page=0%2C4 to http://www.afterelton.com/print/2008/1/tenbestscificharacters?page=0%2C4&loc=interstitialskip

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Jack becomes immortal in Parting of the Ways as Mentioned in Utopia.

From Utopia:

"[Rose] brought you back to life, but she couldn't control it. She brought you back forever."

So unless @2604:6000:C141:6100:94D9:3FDC:CED:BD18: can cite a source that says otherwise, it's correct as-is. DonQuixote (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Television

Added that CJH's actual nickname in youth, according to himself, was "The Face of Boe" Rtelkin (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jack Harkness. 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) 21:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jack Harkness. 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) 04:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Javic Piotr Thane

How do we deal with spin-off audio material of dubious canon? The Jack audio series recently revealed the character's real name but I don't know if it's worth mentioning in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.11.108.74 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You can mention it in a description of the audio series under the Audio drama section. For example, In [audio play], Jack's real name is revealed to be Javic Piotr Thane. DonQuixote (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Harkness. 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/20110712092516/http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/07/torchwood-star-eve-myles-gwen-and-jack-are-two-missing-parts-of-a-jigsaw.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/07/torchwood-star-eve-myles-gwen-and-jack-are-two-missing-parts-of-a-jigsaw.html

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) 16:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Harkness. 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://www.webcitation.org/68B7t4Row?url=http://gaynz.com/articles/publish/37/article_8565.php to http://gaynz.com/articles/publish/37/article_8565.php

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) 05:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

West End trumps television?

Usually the form for an article about a popular actor is to say "perhaps best known for his role as..." and then to list one or two of the actor's highest profile jobs. In Barrowman's case, it would be Jack Harkness and Malcolm Merlyn. Jack is a lead character in five series of Torchwood (as well as Doctor Who and numerous audio appearances) and Malcolm is a fairly major recurring/regular character in Arrow, so they must be higher profile than a West End role right? Or is my view too television-centric? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to this page since this is about the character and not the actor. But if the article had such a reference it would make more sense to bring up Barrowman's stage experience since this was what he was best known for before playing Captain Jack and an article about a TV character pretty much gives away that Barrowman is a TV actor as well. Bringing up Malcolm Merlyn, a character he started playing years after Torchwood ended, would only be relevant if it had some bearing on Captain Jack.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Captain-jack-harkness.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)