Talk:Bobby Ewing

Bobby/Robert
This edit war you all are having is ridiculous. Grow up. Note also that this "reference" does not state a full name. Really, fans, go find some reliable sources and reach a consensus here. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's absurd that this even needs to be a discussion. Literally in the last episode, three days ago, someone went up to Bobby and asked "Robert James Ewing?" to which he replied "That's me." And it's not the first time that full name has been given. What else is needed but citing episodes of the show itself? There's some small weird inexplicable Dallas faction that for some reason really really does not want his name to be Robert, but it simply is. --Harlequin212121 (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the new series has played fast and loose with many things. Bobby's name being one of the sillier ones. Yes, the 2012 series now says he is "Robert James Ewing" on paperwork and certificates, but in the original series, he is "Bobby James Ewing". Season 14, episode 2 "Charade" clearly shows his passport listing him as Bobby, not Robert. So, in effect BOTH there names are correct, but as it stands, neither are definitive. Hardylane (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the old series used 'Robert' as well as 'Bobby' (for instance, in the episode where J.R. and Bobby were presumed dead in a plan crash, Bobby was called Robert in news reports) as such it would seem to me there's every reason to suspect that when Bobby is called just plain Bobby, even in formal settings, it's just people calling Bobby what he is conventionally called. Maybe there's been descrepencies, and maybe there hasn't, but we have to go with one name, and Robert's the one that we're currently being told is his, and whatever people may think of the new series it's no less 'valid' than the first was. And while not ever piece of evidence of the first series supports it, nothing outright negates that Bobby could have always been named Robert. Whereas if it's just Bobby, there's simply no explanation for the myriad of times he's been called Robert. At the VERY least, surely no one is denying his middle name is James, right? --76.168.251.54 (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked Series 2, Episode 9, and right enough, the reporter refers to him as "Robert"... but that was a reporter perhaps making an assumption. The only documentary evidence I recall is the passport scene. Hardylane (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it could be a reporter making an assumption, but should we really be assuming that it is? Do we really think the writers had the reporter use that line thinking "We know the name's actually wrong, but the subtext is that the reporter is using the wrong name."? It's not more likely that the passport (which was a prop which often have misleading information, I've seen things where you quickly see a driver's license of someone clearly young but they're born in like the 1940s if you pause it and check) is incorrect than the line of dialogue written by the writers? I acknowledge there's times (a lot) where Bobby is called that name in a formal setting where Robert would seem more appropriate, but the very fact that he is called Robert and continues to be, does suggest this is the actual name. I mean, heck, there's even interviews out there with Patrick Duffy where he discusses how his initials being R.J. Ewing make him the opposite of J.R. Ewing --68.58.15.97 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Found a source confirming the episode in which Bobby is referred to as "Robert James", however, the same article also notes that Bobby's full name in the original series was "Bobby James" [Ewing]. Obviously, the writers have taken some liberties with the new series; so to go with what is happening on-screen now, in the alias parameter of the infobox, put Bobby James Ewing (original name, later retconned) and put Robert James Ewing (as the retconned) form of the name in the beginning of the article with Bobby as a nickname. Writers do stuff like this all the time and it shouldn't be ignored.--Nk3play2 my buzz 18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose this sounds fine to an extent, although I still don't agree that his name was ever absolutely positively Bobby James Ewing has been established. --68.58.15.97 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At 3.33, in episode 2 of the final season or the original Dallas, Bobby's passport is seen onscreen. It states his name is "Bobby James Ewing", and his birthdate is 16th Feb 1950. It also has Bobby's signature. There is no "Robert". Now it is my understanding that passports are official documents, and as such his full birth name would have been listed HAD it been "Robert" in the original series. This is a concrete proof as you'll ever get in a fictional TV series. Hardylane (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, because it's a prop made for a show in a time before DVR. I wouldn't be able to tell you how many times there've been quick flashes of driver's licenses or passports in movies or TV shows where if you pause it you can tell it's hastily put together and has information that's brazenly wrong. Heck, you just cited a 1950 birthdate? I know for a fact Bobby's birth year was 1949 in another episode. The passport was just something the prop department threw together, most likely. Now, is it necessarily wrong? No, of course not. But why should we go with that over the times Bobby was stated in dialogue written by the actual writers to be named Robert? Robert's been used before, and it's unquestionably what's being used currently. Why is it people are fighting this? A week ago someone asked Bobby if his name was Robert James Ewing. He said yes. I think that should be the end of the story. --68.58.15.97 (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said... in the original series, there is DOCUMENTARY PROOF that he is called Bobby. In the 2012 series there is DOCUMENTARY PROOF that he is called Robert. BOTH situations apply. NEITHER is definitive. I'm letting this go now... you can carry on if you like, but I'm not that bothered, truth be told. Hardylane (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what? This still needs to be resolved because as it stands the page is locked and no edits can be made. The way I see it, the original series went back and forth on if he was Robert or Bobby and the new series firmed it up - he's Robert. So, is this settled? I'm fine with some acknowledgement in the info bar about it occasionally appearing as if he's just Bobby. --68.58.15.97 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bobby's "death" on Knots Landing
While it is true that Bobby's "death" in 1985 was mentioned on Knots Landing, it does not mean that Bobby stayed dead on Knots Landing just because the show didn't make it's 1985-86 season a dream like on Dallas. Bobby's death and subsequent resurrection were simply never mentioned again. Much like Sid and Abby's brother on Knots Landing was mentioned once and then never mentioned again. The show simply chose not to explain the retcon. We all know that Bobby is alive and well, and we all know that Gary and Val went to visit him in Dallas in 2013. Unless there is an irrefutable source, specifically dialogue from an episode of Knots Landing after 1986 which makes reference to Bobby still being dead, then we cannot state that he simply "remained dead" on Knots Landing. This is not Star Trek which operates parallel universes where Tasha Yar or Jennifer Sisko are alive in one but dead in another. It's merely a continuity issue, and soap operas are full of continuity issues. Rather than saying that Bobby remained dead or was resurrected on Knots Landing is an argument that will never be resolved so it is better to simply state that his resurrection was never addressed on Knots Landing and leave it at that. 88.104.8.44 (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a source that says Bobby came back to life on Knots Landing, he was dead. The show said he was dead and they never stated anything different afterwards. Oh, and http://www.ultimatedallas.com/ is a fan site (it says so at the bottom of the page clear as day) so can't be used as a source. In other words, you need to stop claiming that site as "the official source" (as well as stop adding your own original research and unsourced interpretations... which also aren't allowed).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)