Talk:Jack Harkness/Archive 1

Picture
The picture needs to be replaced by a bigger picture. The one I have uploaded is merely a filler. user:jake.mcmahon

Move
I'm moving Captain Jack Harkness to Jack Harkness as that's the way he's listed in the credits. I'll fix the redirects. --khaosworks 13:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Last of the time lords
Do you think we should merge this entry with The Face of Boe?(AndrewAnorak 18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

No. It should be made clear it was an implication. Nothing more.

Yes it should. --User:saucealexman 19:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC) No

Yes. It is made clear from the canon. MadJaxter 19:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No. It seems wrong somehow. First of all, it was implied, not stated as fact. Secondly, both characters behave very very differently. I'd say it would be a bad move to merge them right now. At most, link them together with the Jack=Boe theory. Michiel 19:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No. It hasnt been made clear that he is indeed The Face of Boe just that his nickname was the Face of boe in the 51st Century. Though I will change my mind if Dr Who confidential does in deed make it clear. SimonD 19:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely No. No mention was given that Jack is Boe SimonD 19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the pages should be merged. While it is clearly implied and I do think that Jack is Boe, it is not made clear enough to warrant merging.  Also, Jack and Boe, while probably the same person, are two distinct characters with different names, appearances, personalities, and actors.  After all, the different incarnations of the Doctor have separate pages.  Not to mention the fact that all the info on Boe's article would ruin Jack's otherwise excellent page.  Paul730 19:46, 30 June 2007

NOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! because you will ruin Jack's page and it isnt true beccause there was meant to be a race of Boe's and there is only one Jack and will only ever be one. I agree about linking them as is was his nick name and could be completly unconnected. Also Boe dosent speak in an American acsent and didnt flirt with anyone so it couldnt ever be him. Flexibe-sweet pink 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, while the implication is strong it isn't verified for definite and also merge would result in an very large article. I say they stay separate. --GracieLizzie 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No - because it was The Doctor never acknowledged that Jack was FoB... also, the link could spoil it for viewers new to the series

Jack admits that he is from the planet Boe, therefore his race should be changed to Boe, and besides why would it be implied if it wasnt true, Russel T Davies doesnt do wild goose chases and false implications like that, just because The Doctor doesnt accept it doesnt mean its not true!

Keep in mind anyone that reads that far down the page is going to hit spoilers in the first paragraph. There is indeed controversy over the whole Jack=Boe issue. We have to remember, the Face died and Jack can't. We also have to remember, there's potentially millions of years between Jack and Boe, any cultural allusions (Accents) and personality traits could easily alter over time, just look at the Doctor himself as we pass through the incarnations, and the Master. However, we should mention that it was implied that they are connected, but remember these differences --User:Lyinginbedmon 22:14 30/06/2007 (UTC)
 * The online audio podcast (I think that link will work, if not, you can click for it here) suggests that it's more than "implied". If you listen to it between 43:21.1 and about 45:30, particularly around 44:47, when Julie Gardner says "He is the Face of Boe; Captain Jack", and 45:23, when Phil Collinson says "he (John Barrowman) loves that he's the Face of Boe". They specifically say the Face of Boe, not a Face of Boe. I'm not saying the articles should be merged - apart from this, the two characters were completely distinct - but based on this, a mention as fact that they are the same, err, being, isn't wrong, and it's more than implication. --86.137.247.36 22:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

Yes, they are one in the same but a merge would be terrible! The Boe article should be shrunk into the monsters list, with this article linking to it with the mention of what Jack will become. The characters have maintained distinctly separate personalities and identities in the public consciousness for a long time, despite the connection. ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The podcast episode commentary contains the producers confirming that it's all true. The articles should be merged. People who have nothing to do with the production of the series pontificating on a Wikipedia Talk page don't have the where with all to override what the producers think! Sorry!! Put in qualifiers that the information hasn't been absolutely confirmed on screen if you must, but the articles should be merged as the evidence from two important sources say YES!


 * Even if they are the same person (which they totally are!), they should still have seperate articles for the reasons I mentioned above. Clark Kent and Superman are the same character, but have seperate articles.  Paul730 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping within the same universe, the Doctor has a good 13 articles already, and he's only 10 incarnations in, canonically.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep them seperate even if they are the same person as they are different characters. After all the different incarnations of The Doctor are the same person (The Doctor) but different characters (1st Doctor, 2nd Doctor, ect). Also about Jack not being able to die, that's because he has to much life force, which i'm sure has been stated either within Doctor Who or Torchwood, meaning that if he finally ran out he would die which the Face of Boe did do. The Light6 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... But what about the first appearance? It says "The Empty Child", but if they're the same person, it should be "The End of the World". We could at least put both. Anthrcer 07:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, using the Doctors as a model, we put in the first appearance of each incarnation. A link to FoB is sufficient, no need to confuse everyone.  The FoB might have been "Jack Harkness" but he is a distinct character.  "The Empty Child" is still the first appearance of "Jack" (which is also a pseudonym).  As to life force comment...remember the Face of Boe gave his life force to keep the people of New Earth alive.  If his life force is a 'fact' of the time line, it still remains... just dispersed amongst a whole race.  Looks like Jack worked out a way to finally 'die'.  Race: Jack is human, so that makes FoB human (aged and mutated over millions of years), not the other way round.  Lastly, don't get too hung up trying to tie the FoB continuity in.  We don't know when some bright spark at the BBC said "Hey guys, I've had a brilliant idea...Jack should become the Face of Boe!", and thus how much has been retconned.  It's unlikely that when the FoB was first invented for "The End of the World" that Jack's story had all been worked out.  The FoB only started reacting to the Doctor as an "old friend" in series 3.  No, that wasn't the last comment, 'cos I've thought of another.  The Doctor didn't disbelieve that Jack was FoB.  His "No!" is an exclamation of wonder and realisation.  We frequently use "No!" idiomatically to mean "Fancy that!", "That's amazing!",  "Why didn't I figure that out!".  Watch it again.  Also (I can't stop) there's only viewers' interpretation to back up the idea it was a joke.  Production and publicity seem to indicate that it was intended, and it makes sense... The Doctor couldn't understand how the FoB could live for billions of years, and Jack is (practically) immortal.  Two "impossible" events...makes sense to combine them.  It ties up all the loose ends.  Before we all get too dogmatic, we can  wait and see what the new annuals, companion files and monster books etc have to say about it... Gwinva 09:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bisexual?

 * While Jack flirted with Rose, it became clear that he was bisexual, an orientation which the Doctor pointed out was more common by the 51st century, when mankind had to deal with mulitple alien species and thus sexuality had to be more flexible.


 * I tend to disagree here. It implies nothing more than that in the 51st century, people also have sex with alien species. Nothing says Jack was actually involved with a male alien at any time. Him being clearly bisexual is, based on what we know, quite a long stretch. Anyone else care to comment? -- Mgm|(talk) 20:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * There have been a few news articles about him flirting with the Doctor in later episodes. Tim! (talk) 20:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a few remarks in the episodes, with Jack knowing that Rose is not Algy's type, and him saying how he woke up with both of his executioners ("a lovely couple"). RTD's intent is to show Jack as bisexual, that's not disputed. --20:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * On that latter point, there was nothing to suggest that the "lovely couple" were of different sexes / genders / races / species ... In Boom Town I almost got the feeling that Rose, Jack and the Doctor were a threesome! --Vamp:Willow 09:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * He flirted with that controller guy on the top floor of sat 5 in Bad Wolf in the same way as he did with the girl earlier. And he hid that gun you know where. A man comfortable with his prostate!
 * How did he get it out without pulling a face? ;)
 * ... you don't want to know. --khaosworks 01:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * He's clearly bisexual. When Rose thinks that it might be up to her to distract the guard (Algy) in The Doctor Dances, Jack stops her, saying that she's "not his type", which reflects back to the very first scene where Jack sees Rose hanging from the barrage balloon and says "nice bottom" - Algy says "Jack, there's a time and a place", to which Jack responds "You've got a nice bottom to, Algy" - clearly implying some kind of existing relationship between the two men.


 * The Doctor might have explained to Rose by suggesting humans have to have sex with aliens in the 51st century, but all we've seen on screen is him trying it on indiscriminatly with male and female human beings, oh, and the Doctor of course... PaulHammond 12:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to pile on the evidence, no one else seems to have mentioned the (at least partial mouth open) lip-kiss with the Doctor in Parting of Ways and greeting the Doctor "Hi Handsome!" in Bad Wolf. --Ryvr 07:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Doctor's comment in The Doctor Dances implies he thinks Jack "looks both ways" (and there is no comment to the contrary).

Perhaps including a quote from a character in torchwood? Wasnt it something about how he will "shag anything that moves"? --Carterhawk 01:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. As well, I have heard it somewhere that was described (or described himself) as pansexual, implying the obsolescence of homo- or bi-sexuality.Arcayne 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--Captain jack's sexuality is "fluid" - ie, he is potentially attracted to everything. men and women of any species. Mad Cheese Eater 08:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rank
He is Captain Jack, but there's no such rank in the Royal Air Force. Presumably the "Captain" comes from some other aspect of his life - as a Time Agent, as the commander of his own vessel, or perhaps just as a self-awarded title to improve his image with the ladies (and gentlemen?). The photo on the page doesn't give a perfect view of his badges of rank, but it looks like he's a Flight Lieutenant in the RAF.
 * We discuss this a bit in the Notes section of The Empty Child. --khaosworks 15:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * This picture indicates he's either a Squadron Leader (equivalent to a USAF major ) or a Wing Commander (USAF lieutenant colonel), depending on whether the middle of the three stripes on his shoulder is thinner than the other two (hard to tell). There are definitely three stripes though, so he's not a Flight Lieutenant (two stripes). Franey 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - or since he's a con man, it might just be something he thought sounded nice. PaulHammond 12:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Doctor suggests it's probably something he thought sounded nice ("He's not really a captain"), before conceding it might have had validity at one point ("If he ever was a captain, he's been defrocked"). Jack comes back with "Actually, I quit", which seems to be a reference to his career as a Time Agent. Daibhid C 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack is an American. More to the point he was an American Volunteer to the RAF (or at least posing as such), before the involvement of the USA in WWII. There were many American Volunteer pilots in the RAF. I seem to remember in WWII movies those American Pilots being refered to by their American Army Air Core ranks. --Murphoid 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In reality, none of them were given Captain's ranks, even in the Eagle Squadrons. As we note above, see the note under "Historical details" in The Empty Child discussing this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To serve in the Americans' Eagle Squadron in Britain during WW2, the American officers had to resign their commissions in the Army Air Corps. Since, the original Captain Jack Harkness came from the US, we plainly see his Eagle Squadron badge during his appearance, can't we assume Captain is merely an honorarium by the Brits/Harkness's men that refers to his former (and resigned) Army Air Corps rank? CritCol 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I say forget teh rank stuff. It has not been sufficiently explained via canon material to warrant conclusions based on subjective reasoning. After all this is an encyclopedia, right?Arcayne 19:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From what i have found Jack has been described as Omnisexual due to the fact he is from the 51st century. There's still not enough evidence to actually state it i dont think. (ItsMatt 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Just watched the first ep - the rank on his jacket is clearly four equal bars - Group Captain rank. So "Captain" is pretty close to the mark. Cached 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

- According to torchwood, "captain jack harkness" was a name he directly copied from someone else from the world war 2 period who died. jack stole his identity. therefore the rank must exist within watever organisation it was - scriptwriters and suchlike dont make glaring mistakes like that. Mad Cheese Eater 08:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Either a script writer's or costume designer whose a little ignorant of the military methinks! A Captain in the US army air corps of the time would have been equivalent to a Flight Lieutenant.  "Captain" has a better ring to it, but if he was meant to be a Group Captain (as in dicated by the four bands he wears) this is an air base commander equivalent to a full bird colonel of the USAAF (i.e. an RN Captain).  Though not impossible, seems a heady height of authority for Jack's apparent age but most of all, it is more difficult to match with his maverick character than that of a more junior rank such as captain/flight lieutentant.  Being a Group Captain would make him far too conspicuous and rsponsible to do his own "thing". Dainamo 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

New Picture
I've added a new picture of Jack becuase the old one was a bit boring and only really applied to episodes nine and ten. The new picture shows Jack to be a member of the TARDIS team, aswell. --user:jakemcmahon

Left Behind
Why was Jack left behind anyway?--bjwebb 09:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that they thought that he was still dead --Jawr256 11:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the Doctor wasn't aware of the fact that Jack was resurrected. I think the producers decided to leave Jack behind for a while so that they could concentrate just on Rose's reactions to the Doctor's regeneration - which, apparently, will be an important part of the Christmas special.--Pecholobo 12:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that Mr Barrowman has some theater commitments. Incidentally, I heard secondhand that he's signed for the full third series... I'd add it to the article but it's still very much a rumour. Radagast 00:38, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

One of yesterday's newspapers said that Jack will appear in series 3 to console the grieving Doctor after Rose dies. But it hasn't even been confirmed that Rose does die. And with a new assistant joining, I imaging Jack would only appear mid-series, even if the rumours are true. Digifiend 09:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's now the 3rd series and Jack has appeared quite some time after the start... Torchwood tells us that he's been trying to find the doctor. he may be in the 4th series, but the end of the 3rd hasnt even been concluded yet so there's no way of telling.

The doctor is not please to see him as he knows Jack is "wrong" ie, he can never die. The doctor voices this and says it's the reason he left jack behind. to which Jack replies jokingly: "Doctor! Are you prejudiced?!" Mad Cheese Eater 08:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Naked People on TV
Jon Pertwee was naked in his first serial, Spearhead from Space, when he was trying to escape from a hospital and took a shower in a staff room as a place to hide. His buttocks also were shown in that scene (if I remember correctly). It also might be the first televised naked person on TV (potentially excluding pornography and probably on network television), but I don't collect statistics about naked people :P PKFC 00:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, we never actually saw his buttocks, but he was under the shower - we caught a glimpse of his naked hip, though. --khaosworks 01:00, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there also an episode where Benton is restored from a baby, I'm thinking it may have been The Time Monster, and he is is naked, but again is only seen from a discreet view? Tim! (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

And this matters exactly why?Arcayne 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Three Reverts
I may be new to wiki Khaos, but isn't 3 reverts against the rules?


 * No. Three reverts within 24 hours is the maximum you can do. Exceeding that is breaking the rule. That's why I'm marking it as three reverts. Now that I've got your attention, though, can we discuss that particular paragraph?


 * The disputed passage goes: Although Harkness appears to be attracted to both Rose and the Doctor, he became quickly aware of the bond existing between the two and has made no further apparent advances towards Rose beyond playful flirting; likewise with the Doctor.


 * The reason why I say there is no basis for this is primarily because of the statement that Jack's backed off because he "became quickly aware of the bond existing between the two." Nowhere does Jack say this, or even hint that he's backed off because of this reason. The closest any character has come to this is actually Adam, where in The Long Game he says, "It'll take a better man than me to get between the two of you," to Rose. If anything, Jack has become part of a TARDIS trio and shares a rapport with both of them and seems quite content with that. Excising that portion, the rest of the paragraph becomes redundant because the flirting with Rose and the Doctor is already mentioned elsewhere in the article.


 * Now, if you can show me an indication where Jack has not made "further apparent advances" because of this "awarness" of a bond (which is not subject to interpretation), I am willing to be convinced. But right now, it's too interpretative a statement and not backed up by any evidence. --khaosworks 16:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your commitment to the letter and not the spirit of the law is obvious. I realize that I care much less about this article than you do.  Flugku


 * Please see WP:NPA. All I am asking for is to be as factual as possible in the articles. --khaosworks 00:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Classy Death"
As a 20 year follower of Doctor Who, I felt the addition of the following line to be important in relating this part of Jack's significance to the changing "depth" of the show:


 * Although he was later resurrected, his calm "last words" of, "I kind of figured that," in response to the Daleks' order of "Exterminate!" demonstrated a highly contrasting mode of death to the traditionally horrified screams of past Dalek victims.

I welcome discussion as to whether others support this.

Please note, I chose to point to the significance by an "objective" contrast without using the article to express my personal opinion of the "classiness" of this death. Some readers may conclude that it is "classy," while other may have different value judgements, but irregardless, a meaningful contrast with most previous Dalek victims exists.


 * This actually belongs more in a note for The Parting of the Ways than it does about Jack, since its significance is for its historical nature - to use it as a means of boosing Jack's character is to my mind borderline POV. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary
I know tonight's episode might help clear this up, but how contemporary is contemporary? As of Love & Monsters and Doomsday, it is Late 2007. We are in October 2006. Does that woman who headed London's Torchwood still live? Does Jack have conversations with her? Are we before or after Army Of Ghosts and Doomsday?


 * In his interview with Jonathan Ross on his radio show Saturday, John Barrowman said that Torchwood is set after "the Battle of Canary Wharf" (that is, the events of Doomsday). I don't know how strict the continuity will be, though — it's entirely possible that they may slip up and forget that "modern-day" events in Doctor Who are a year ahead, thanks to the dates given on-screen in Aliens of London. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Both the Army of Ghosts and the Dalek attack were mentioned in the screening of Ep1 & 2 Last night, so it's remembered and it's continuity (at present).

BTW does someone feel like adding http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6077078.stm to trivia? Father Shandor 23:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned at the main Torchwood article and the episode article for "Everything Changes". I think that's sufficient — the ratings aren't directly relevant to an article about the character, are they? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This character's special power
In the first episode of Torchwood, we see the man survive a bullet through the head. He claims he cannot be killed but does not know why.
 * Spoiler for Dr Who / The Doctor Dances
 * Spoiler for Torchwood / Everything Changes

In the Dr Who episode The Doctor Dances, we learn that Jack Harkness was in possession of a "Chula medical transport". He thought it was empty, but it turns out to be full of 'nanogenes'. They revived a a dead child wearing a gas mask, with unfortunate side-effects. But why shouldn't Jack also have been affected?

--GwydionM 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because he wasn't injured when it was opened, so there was no reason for those nanogenes to act on him. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If he was then injured or killed, the 'nanogenes' might have restored him, but not 100% correctly.  For all we know, he might have gone back to Britain in World War Two, suffered an accident and been living continuously since then, without aging or changing.  Which would be a reason to be seeking the Doctor's advice.


 * This might also mean he was no longer entirely human (the topic of the section below). He was just a human time traveller when the Doctor last met him.  (Not that meetings between time travellers need be sequential, but Dr Who mostly has it so.) --GwydionM 18:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the nanogenes were that magic, then there'd really be no for the Chula to create a medical transport (or nanogenes, for that matter) since they could just treat a soldier once and presto, immortality. And also, all the people remade by the nanogenes at the end of The Doctor Dances would be immortal. If the nanogenes were still active in Jack's system, they should have been detected by now (they can spot nanotech in Torchwood). In any case, the nanogenes were programmed to shut down at the end of The Doctor Dances. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a wet blanket here, but all of this is supposition (albeit stated politely). I think that keeping a lid on that sort of stuff hereprevents that same sort of supposition (like the correctly removed tripe that Jack was the Doctor's son) from leaking into the main article. This is an encyclopedia; let's try to preserve that definition here. If it has not been stated within the contect of an episode, then it does not belong in the article. Not even stuff from publicity junkets deserves to belong, as we have clearly seen that they are rarely if ever correct. Canon is hard enough to delineate without people adding their own suppositions as fact. Sorry for all the harsh, but there it is.Arcayne 09:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have to say that in End of Days (I think), jack says he died once, was brought back, and since then he can't die. It's fairly clear that the time in the TARDIS is in his subjective history relative to Torchwood, thus I'd say that it's referring to when the Daleks kill him, and Rose brings him back to life. mattbuck 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Human?
Can someone please provide a source for him being human? 0plus minus0  20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's ever been explicitly confirmed in Doctor Who or Torchwood, but John Barrowman told Jonathan Ross on his radio show that Jack was human, not alien. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fairly implicit in The Parting of the Ways too, when the Doctor refers to Jack and Rose collectively as "human race, stand around all day chatting you would". (sic, but the "human race" part was in there, anyway...) Angmering 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright... but there are just comments such as:
 * "EUREKA! We’ve been looking at it from a human perspective (human beings always assume it’s all about them. The most narcissistic race in the universe, I swear. )"
 * (taken from ) suggest to me that maybe he's not 100% human. The use of the word "them" when referring to humans is notable. 0plus  minus0  12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, he does say "we've been looking at it from a human perspective," not "you've been looking..." Angmering 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...yet he also refers to humans as "them" in the same sentence... maybe he's refering to the Torchwood team as "we" - he's a part of it, and it's predominantly human. Also, in Everything Changes, he talks about how he loves this planet (because of what's in the rain). Earth is the home planet of humans, so this is a bit weird also. 0plus  minus0  20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He's from the 51st century; he could well be human but not from Earth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but my point is that he could not be human, or only part human. 0plus  minus0  20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Misplaced modifier there: I think you mean to say that he could be not human, not that he could not be human (since he obviously could). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember him saying he was a Time Lord (not the same as a human) when he first appeared, I could be wrong though. - MTC 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are. He said that he was a former Time Agent.  We don't know exactly what a Time Agent is, but in The Talons of Weng-Chiang Magnus Greel (a human from the same time period as Jack, the 51st century) expected them to be after him.  There's no reason to believe that he's anything other than human. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good on you, JosiahRowe! People, it has not been said within the context of the episodes that Jack is anything but human, so keep the imaginations to a minimum please. Jack is somehow altered (that whole immortality thing), missing 2 years of his life, and from the future, but human. Unless the series specifically states otherwise, it is not for us to make that leap.Arcayne 09:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

After having seen Ep13, season finale of Torchwood, something has been going through my mind for quite some time. Captain Jack dies and then remains dead for several days, but then, he springs back to life. Now, if we look back at how the Captain gained his immortality, without questioning his origins, whether human or not: he was resurrected in the last episode of the 2005 series of Doctor Who, by the Time Vortex, which is Timelord technology/science/whatever. Then, he disappeared and reappeared somewhere else. He joined Torchwood and he is (just like we all are) desperate to find answers to what has happened to him. He became a leader at Torchwood, and knows much more than he shows. Oh yeah, and he's growing a Tardis on his desk. Friends, I think we can say that the Doctor is not the last of the Timelords, for I think we have witnessed the birth of a new Timelord, The Captain. He may well be the one and only Timelord to be born outside Gallifrey, but the Timelords are a race, perhaps the Eye of Harmony is trying to keep the race going. I think all the signs point to the BBC trying to resurrect the Timelords somehow, perhaps as the future theme for the Doctor Who series. I believe in the season finale we have witnessed the first (complete) regeneration of The Captain, who actually took on his former appearance. I hope the BBC is reading the stuff people are thinking, and if they aren't, they should be :) All the best, George Adam Horváth 11:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What RTD, the BBC, the Daleks, the Tellitubbies, or the Welsh National Opera have or have not got planned for Jack Harkness is a moot point unless it has been explicitly stated by an official source. Conjecture of this type comes under Wikipedia's definition of original research and shouldn't be included in the article. Mention of it as fan speculation should only be included if there were a significant body of forum topics, blog posts, or even magazine articles postulating it. --Jason Kirk 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Torchwood Declassified episode 'Jack's Back', Russell Davies notes that Jack is not human.

Home Era 51st Century?

 * "What evidence is there of this? I know his weapon from the episode "The Empty Child" was from the 51st century but that just means that he's been there. That's like saying his jacket was made in 1950 so he must be from that century. I would think it would be more reliable to use the date from the papers Gwen Copper (from the series Torchwood, not Doctor Who) found. I'm not sure if it said his birthdate, or just the date he disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.4.192 (talk • contribs)


 * The Doctor says, when Rose expresses shock at Jack going to "distract" Algy: "He's a fifty-first century guy. He's just a little more flexible when it comes to... dancing." Also, IIRC, in Doctor Who Confidential Barrowman refers to Jack as a Time Agent from the 51st century. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lahore
The flashback sequence in Small Worlds shows 1909 as the year Jack was in the train in Lahore. He says the Chosen One was killed about a week earlier. The website however shows a letter dated January 1908 in which the Chosen One was already killed. Which date is more canon? V 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I don't know of any specific statement to this effect from the production crew, but in almost all other cases, no matter what TV show or franchise, the information in the actual episodes is considered primary. All other material, be they supporting websites or licensed books, are traditionally considered secondary. So personally I'd consider 1909 to be canonical, unless it's corrected at a later date or is referenced in a DVD commentary (or some other official manner) --Jason Kirk 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

JasonKirk is correct. The episodes (and movies) are considered canon. Everything else, including books, websites, inerviews with cast and crew are ALL secondary. Period. Of course, sometimes these episodes will contradict. Such is the nature of the beast.Arcayne 09:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

sleep
Jack states that he does not sleep in the one of the first episode - yet in the latest episode he's asleep at the beginning.... --Charlesknight 16:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He says he doesn't sleep, not that he can't, perhaps he prefers to avoid or else he has nightmares as-per Small Worlds. --GracieLizzie 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Overdetailing
This article is getting potentially very unwieldy, especially as we seem to be adding every little detail about Jack's life and personality, which will surely increase as the series continues. Surely, this can be pared down tremendously. Right now, it's a bit of a mess. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I dunno one persons overdetailing can be another persons "fleshing out the article". I does look a bit cluttered though, and it is beginning to star to get unwieldy as you said, perhaps it can be cut down into more appropriate sections like ==Life as a Time Agent and Con Man==, ==Travelling with the Doctor== , ==Life After the Doctor== or something similar (only better as the above isn't perfect). This would also make it easier to identify any unnecessary exposition and detailing. --GracieLizzie 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If more detail is added with each episode, then the length of the article would be proportionate to TV exposure, which seems appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.194.5.18 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I'd agree that its a mess, but at the moment we know so little of Jack's backstory that we can do little more than catalog the fragments that we do know. Maybe after the series finale it'll be possible to consolidate the Torchwood material into something a little more concrete. --Jason Kirk 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest separating the info into sections by theme, rather than by episode. E.g. a section on backstory, with what details have been revealed in the various episodes, a section on personal life (like the relationships with Ianto and Estelle), ditto, etc. Right now, it seems that it starts that way, then becomes "Episode x: we find out this about his background, this about his personality, this about his personal life. Episode y: We find out this, this... To me it seems a confusing way of cataloguing the info that has been given, although I can see how it's easier in some ways for all the info from a new episode to be in one paragraph. 172.141.34.99 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambig note
I suggest the initial three disambig notes be combined into one:


 * This article is about the character from both the Doctor Who and Torchwood television series. For other uses, including other uses within these series, see Jack Harkness (disambiguation).

Still a bit long, but it is better than three separate lines. -- Chuq 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First or third?
The article states

In Bad Wolf Jack became the first regular character in the programme's history to appear naked on screen (not counting the Third Doctor's shower scene in Spearhead from Space and Sergeant Benton at the end of The Time Monster), albeit discreetly shielded by strategically placed props. However, the BBC vetoed the production team's original intention of showing Jack's buttocks. In The Parting of the Ways Jack kissed both Rose and the Doctor good-bye on the lips, the latter being the first such same-sex kiss in the programme's history (not counting a similar kiss between male warriors in "The Ribos Operation," although that kiss was between the lead villain and his right-hand man).

Which makes no sense. In each case the item in the brackets nulifies the "first" claim without any other information given as to why the previous occasions should be discounted. Ajmayhew 15:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood Website
Should the material from the Torchwood intranet be moved to its own section under the Other Appearances? I added one paragraph about it, but Khaosworks removed it -- he rightly pointed out that the website is rather unclear and possibly contradictory. Maybe collating that stuff under one section would allow the casual reader to understand its uncertain canonicity. --Jason Kirk 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Drinking habits / alcohol?
It's been a while since I watched the first series, but I seem to recall Jack and Rose drinking champagne on his ship when they first meet in Doctor Who... but in every pub scene in Torchwood, Jack appears to be drinking water. Does anyone know if there's a reason for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.97.69 (talk • contribs) 19:36, February 23, 2007 (UTC)
 * I was puzzled by this too — but then I think that he drinks alcohol in at least one episode late in the first series. (Not sure about that, though.)  Anyway, I don't think it's been explicitly addressed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How do we know it's water and not vodka or white rum? He has a martini when he thinks he is going to die in the ship explosion doesn't he? --GracieLizzie 11:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has a martini in The Doctor Dances. It's only in Torchwood that he seems consistently to drink water (or another clear liquid) when others are drinking beer and the like.  But we really don't know enough about it to say anything in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In a deleted scene from Everything Changes, Jack tells Gwen that he drinks water because 'You never know when your going to be travelling long distances'. Which is what happens at the end of the last episode when he is picked up by the TARDIS.

He claims to have had 5 hyper vodka's on the day of his trial (The Doctor Dances) and woken up with both of his executioners. He also had gin, vermouth, martinis, etc. It's easy to assume he's perpetually drinking vodka, since that appears to be his favourite.

Also, the nanogene thing is the easiest to explain, since "Life is easy. A way to keep meat fresh." - NemFX

He drinks brandy or somthing in torchwood in small world when Estelle dies if that helpsFlexibe-sweet pink 21:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive
I think its about time this talk page had an archive since its a bit too long and some of the origional comments are irrellivent to what we know about hime today. What does everyone else think?--Wiggstar69 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not in chronological order?
I thought the layout of the appearences looked better in date order, since the episodes fit better in order and make more sence. To be honest it could be put any way but I think putting it in chronological order looks better, I would quite like to change it back (and will) unless someone gives me a sufficient reason not to.--Wiggstar69 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's standard practice for articles about television characters, and the episodes he appears in are covered chronologically in the character history section.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware there are not any good exaples of charicters who have move from program to program without having it in chronological order in their history, please give me a good few exaples to show its 'standard practice' (meaning used in majority of these cases) if you can i'd be happy to keep it the way it is.--Wiggstar69 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not many have "appearances" sections but off the top of my head I'd say: Sarah Jane Smith, Star Trek characters, Buffy/Angel characters ... any series with some intertextuality. It's not a big deal to me... if somebody else disagrees with me, I'll cave. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My vote: I definitely prefer chronological order by series as it is now. --  LeCour T:C 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so understanding, I'm going to change it, although if some more people diagree with me then I wont mind changing it back--Wiggstar69 10:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm, that's not what I meant, actually. With your most recent edit, Wiggstar, appearances are now just chronological, not chronological by series. I preferred the way Zythe had it. --  LeCour T:C 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I got confused--Wiggstar69 08:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Not counting..."
"Jack becomes the first regular character in the programme's history to appear naked on screen (not counting the Third Doctor's shower scene in Spearhead from Space and Sergeant Benton at the end of The Time Monster)", "the latter being the first such same-sex kiss in the programme's history (not counting a similar kiss between male warriors in "The Ribos Operation," although that kiss is between the lead villain and his right-hand man)."

Why are these instances not counted? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've played down the references because they're not that extraordinary for British television and certainly not unexpected when the producer of the programme is the originator of the racy British version of Queer as Folk. --Tony Sidaway 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Webley revolver
I have removed the following recent addition:


 * However, Jack's preferred weapon appears to be a Webley Mark IV (See Webley Revolver). However, pictures (on Torchwood's official site ) showing Jack with his pistol make it difficult to identify whether it is the .38 or .455 variant; but due to Jack's appearance in World War II one may assume it is the .455 variant.

It appears to be largely original research. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that Captain Jack first appears in WWII, it is just as likely the pistol is a not a Webley, but an Enfield No 2 Mk 1 in .38/200 caliber. The front sight SEEMS to indicate that it is of the Enfield variety, which were only produced in .38/200 caliber. 24.7.169.19 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Mlknchz

Picture
I beleive a picture of him from series three would better represent what is currently happening to jack(the salute picture would be a good idea.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.168 (talk • contribs).
 * Jack has not yet appeared in Series 3. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also unnecessary. The current image meets fair use criteria, a replacement might not. Recentism is also not important in defining what is significant to a character. Technically, his 13 episode Torchwood portrayal is what currently most defines the character.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Series 3/Tenth Doctor
I've readded these, because, as they are sourced and the subjects (i.e. the last three episodes of Series 3) are notable and have articles, they do not fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Children?
Is Jack a dad? I vaguely remember him saying something in Torchwood (think it was the first episode) about pregnancy and then how he was "never doing that again." My memory of Torchwood isn't great so I might be talking rubbish, but he's really old, so he might had kids at some point. Lol, maybe he was the one who was pregnant, with some alien spawn or something. Paul730 02:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the implication I got was that he never wanted to get pregnant again. Can't blame him, really. ShaleZero 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is he a alien then? because normaly male humans dont tend to get pregnant. ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

- Yes but you have to remember, he's from the 51st century. who knows what they invented then. besides, it may just have been a joke which Davies didn't intend us to think about too deeply. Mad Cheese Eater 08:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

-But isn't there a possibility that Jack is the Face of Boe? And the Face of Boe had kids....could it be connected?

Jack wasn't Boe then. Foreshadowing? Paul730 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on what we know now after the three season, its likely that Jack is able to get pregnant and even may have been at some point although he didn't enjoy it. That's all we know - anything else like children we'll have to wait for the series to clear up. BethEnd 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just reverted an addition that says he was "apparently pregnant." It didn't quite fit in the middle or the sentence where it was placed, and there were formatting problems, but the main reason is that the remark is similar to his joking about his spaceship as a bar ("See if I come here again" - "The Doctor Dances") and the Valient as a hotel booked online ("Last of the Time Lords"). If someone wants to put it back in somewhere, it should be given some context, I think, and not plopped in the middle or a sentence about his romantic involvements in general. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reunion with the Doctor section
I think that the section on Reunion with the Doctor is required otherwise someone wishing to know this information would have to read the entire torchwood section. LizzieHarrison 09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's part of the later section of his fictional history. If people are "looking" for that specific information at the moment, they'd know it's at the bottom.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot
This article reads like a big plot summary of Torchwood. Can someone please add information about the creation of Jack as a character and his impact on pop culture rather than simply reiterate the storyline. You could even mention his parody in Dead Ringers. Also, any interviews with John Barrowman or Russel T Davis could be used in a "Writing and acting" section. Thanks. Paul730 12:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my next goal is to basically stop it from being an episode-by-episode account, take plot points like the times Jack kills murder and compile them in the "characterisation" section to show what he's like. Turn all the TW1/DW3 stuff into more of a description of his character at this point in the story. And compact it a hell of a lot. Three or four large paragraphs, maybe.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1959
I know [or think I know] there used to be this superb account by a 1959-era Torchwood staffmember detailing an amnesiac Jack in a bunker, being tested for assessment in joining Torchwood, but I can't seem to find it, even when visiting the Torchwood main website itself. Can anyone help? [User: Stripey].

Found it. :) It was 1958, and is the Journal in the Emma-Louise Cowell article on the Torchwood website. Having dragged out the bits of it I need, I've noticed it contradicts the episodes, leading me to add my piece to the above thread (see up there above) on series vs Everything Else.  Jack cannot have spent more-or-less every year from roundabout 1908 to at least 1958 only ever awake on one day each year, for this contradicts Small Worlds, Captain Jack Harkness, Utopia and The Sound of Drums.  Hmmm... [User: Stripey].


 * Who knows. I would LOVE if they somehow tied it into James Marsters' appearance next year, though - maybe it's not Jack at all. If you had to rectify it with Jack's personal history, this is just a couple years out of many and he may have been lying to the guy. Best not to put it anywhere on the article, it doesn't have a real place.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Face of Boe
the face of boe has jacks head shape, as well as the indented chin. hes also been said to have an enormous life force on more than one occasion, as he was using it to power a city for like 25 years. id say theres alot of evidence to certainly heavily imply it. but it hasnt been stated as absoloute fact. you know what russel t. davies is like.

Right then. Provide absolute proof that he is, in fact, the Face of Boe.

Oh dear. You can't seem to find a solid citation. It's only implied. Ah well.

I doubt Jack is the Face of Boe personally. The fact they called Jack 'the Face of Boe' like today's 'The Face of Loreal' or 'The Face of Chanel' could have had a double meaning to suit a purpose. The fact that the Face of Boe is an actual face (well head type creature) seems to indicate that is how he gained his moniker. The people who nicknamed Jack were obviously using knowledge of the actual FoB as a double meaning to suit a purpose.

He says he was the Face of Boe.

Oh yes? And the Doctor then denies it. It is implied. That is all.


 * Look, it might be retconned later that he isn't the Face of Boe after all, but right now it's strongly implied that he is. Based on the information we have, it's safe to assume he's the Face of Boe.  Deal.  Paul730 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it does make sense, and they look similar --User:saucealexman 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Because assumptions are just what an encyclopedia should be based on?

Has been pointed out that the Face of Boe dies in Girdlock, however it is possible that he (Jack) has simply evolved or 'learned' to the point he has disoovered how he can end his life and has finaly chosen too. I am at a party and do not have the time currently to edit the article to remove the current point that Boes death and Jacks apparent immortaility are a contradition which they are not (nessisarily). Hopefully someone will check the line where the Doctor in answer to Jacks question as to whether he can die is that he is not sure. (Not Logged in Person 1101)

It's too early to decide, I vote that we change all articles to say he MIGHT be the face of boe.

I agree, nothing is known, it just seems so. Easterino 19:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seems that the Doctor is not so much disputing the fact that Jack is the Face of Boe as much as he is extreamly suprised, remember he has been 'confused' before when he has met people 'out of sequence', just check the episode with the weaping angles at the end. (Not Logged in Person 1101)

There is nothing to back up the idea jack is the face of boe, as the face of boe is said to have had offspring. Jack is a male so could not have given birth. I think this is proof enough.


 * In "Everything Changes", Jack mentions having been pregnant before and that he never wants to do that again. So that's not a good argument against.67.128.224.226 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's said right there in the episode that Jack used to be called the Face of Boe. That seems pretty conclusive.

It was clearly stated that jack still aged, as such he can die (as the face of boe) from old age.

"There is nothing to back up the idea jack is the face of boe, as the face of boe is said to have had offspring. Jack is a male so could not have given birth. I think this is proof enough." > firstly he is from the 51st century (who knows what changes have been made, secondly the face of boe is far from completely human....)

This is all based on a name people called Jack. People used to call me Batman and I don't run around in full leathers catching bad people. It's a NAME. Someone tell me they have the most unique name in the universe that no one else has. (Sam3773 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Why would the writers waste screen time on a pathetic mislead? It's a fictional story; everything in it is there for a reason.  Paul730 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, this exchange is very difficult to follow. EvilRedEye 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Especially since it's happening in four different sections. Paul730 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They would put it in to mislead to cause this. The entire fanbase of Doctor Who is talking about this, meaning they're talking about Doctor Who. Thus ratings are higher. They want the audience to talk about it. Argue about it. It hasn't been confirmed, it hasn't been denied. I'm just saying we shouldn't make any changes over something which is mearly implied. (Sam3773 20:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I agree that we shouldn't confirm or deny it, but we shouldn't ignore it just because some fans don't like the possibility that it might be true. Obviously, they writers want to generate excitement and discussion, but they're not going to waste their time if Jack and Boe have no connection whatsoever.  Paul730 20:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, its no different to being given a nickname. He says that he was 'called' the face of Bo as a child, as I recall he was from the future anyway, so its possible that he was given it as a nickname, in the same way that some people call a girl 'Lolly', doesn't make her a lollypop though. Also, the doctor unequivocally states that he can't give him the ability to die, which means that the Face of Boe would be a contradiction if he was Jack Harkness, also stated in a previous episode was the doctors words 'She brought you back, forever.' in reference to Rose Tyler's ressurection of the Captain. Despite all that, I would like to believe he could be the Face, would answer a few questions, but for now, not enough evidence to register it as a fact in an encyclopedia. - Little Fairy 217.41.217.24 20:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a contradiction. In the episode Gridlock, the Face of Boe used his lifesource to keep the city moving, knowing that it would kill him.


 * It would explain how the Face knew the Doctor was not alone. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

He is from Boe, he is the first person to have been accepted into an 'elite' organisation, he is 'immortal'. Given these facts it is more than possible that him being a poster boy for the Boeians(???) would earn him the title 'The Face of Boe'. With all other arcs the producers/writers have run the idea for a while allowing the minority of 'Super Fans' to run with the idea and then explain it in plain terms to the masses. This is no different, the Face of Boe said the Doctor is not alone, it turns out he was not, the Face of Boe is revealed to be Jack, and his 'timeline' with the Doctor explains why the Face of Boe would know he is not. The facts that Jack asks how he would age, his immortality, and his presence in the importaint parts of this story make him the perfect cadiate for being the face. To assume that he is not, inspite of what the producers/writers and the episodes reveal is expecting too much from the production team. This is'nt Lost (TV series), its a BBC mass market production with a happy well rounded up ending each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.249.181 (talk • contribs)

The podcast episode commentary contains the producers confirming that it's all true. The articles should be merged. People who have nothing to do with the production of the series pontificating on a Wikipedia Talk page don't have the where with all to override what the producers think! Sorry!! Put in qualifiers that the information hasn't been absolutely confirmed on screen if you must, but the articles should be merged as the evidence from two important sources say YES!


 * Zeal aside, I'm with this person. MERGE. It's been confirmed by the powers that be.  Jack goes on to become the Face of Boe.  Over millions of years, his body changes in such unbelievable ways that we cannot begin to fathom how his anatomy has been screwed with.  And yet, this is sci-fi, and if they want to do the unbelievable and have us eat it with a spoon, it's not for us to say, "Nope, doesn't make sense to us, so we're all going to come to a consensus reality that Jack Harkness is only possibly the Face of Boe, though you've told us to our faces (it's in the notes) that he is indeed, and as a group, we refuse to represent the actual reality of the situation in our encyclopedia."  That probably was a run-on and made no sense, but I'm tired and you're smart, and I have faith that you can work it out.diminutivething 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that we see the Face of Boe in the 2001st century and then exactly the same some 5 Billion years later, are we led to believe that Jack mutated into him over 200, 000 years relatively quickly and then suddenly the rate of mutation then levelled off into nothing? The only explanation can be that he lived for trillions of years and mutated slowly into the Face, then travelled back to die sometime before the 2001st century. --Greenunity 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - while Jack and the Face may be the same person, wiki has separate articles (as good scifi examples) for: Clark Kent & Superman; Anakin Skywalker & Darth Vader. Redirecting Boe to Jack will merely confuse people who haven't seen the final episode, and frankly, while they're the same PERSON, they are different CHARACTERS. mattbuck 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they should remain seperate pages, but it should be made informed that they ore the same person. Fishyghost 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Bear with me here, but if the nickname "Face of Boe" was uncommon enough to strongly enough suggest that Jack and the Face are the same creature, Jack either would have reacted when Martha talked about the Face of Boe and his dying words in Utopia with Jack standing right there (a few seconds before the You Are Not Alone clip and the Professor's "change") or not have mentioned at all that he was once nicknamed Face of Boe (if he was protecting timelines or something like that). Maybe I'm making too big of a deal out of a small continuity issue here, but Utopia was only a couple of episodes ago and written by the same writer, so the ambiguity (and possibility of Jack pulling the Doctor's leg) was probably intended. 194.109.238.121 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what you just said supports the fact that Jack and Boe are the same person, which they are. Here are my reasons:


 * 1) Jack has never been present when the Doctor or any of his companions talked about the Face of Boe.
 * 2) Boe wasn't in the episode Utopia, it was a flashback in the Doctor's mind, and so Jack wouldn't know about it.
 * 3) Jack wouldn't mention the name "Face of Boe" at all, for the above reasons.
 * So, as you can see, the Face of Boe isn't mentioned at all in Utopia. And so Jack wouldn't know that the Doctor had already met Jack/Boe before hand, but after. Jasca Ducato 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd agree it would be kind of bothersome if what you mentioned in your first point had in fact happened ;-) ? I'm afraid the Face of Boe was actually quite literally mentioned by Martha with Jack listening. The previous scenes had been the Professor fiddling with the watch, contemplating opening it, and then the rocket countdown. Jack came running to where the Doctor and Martha were, mentioning how becoming a human and hiding at the end of the universe would have been the perfect way for a Timelord to escape the Time War. Martha says "Think what the Face of Boe said. His dying words." Mostly blank look from Jack. Then the rocket igniting, interrupting the conversation, Professor opening the watch, and then the Face of Boe/YANA montage taking place indeed quite obviously in the Doctor's mind. The producers' commentary for Last of the Timelords, which I've now listened to, indicated that Davies wrote quite at the last minute into Gridlock that the Face called the Doctor "old friend", in case he wanted to use this as foreshadowing for some meeting in the Face's "past" or something like that. So Jack's line "Face of Boe, they used to call me" was not planned very far ahead of time and Davies seemed quite pleased that by writing it like this, he was able to keep it "just a theory", keeping all his options open. The other producers thought the Jack=Face thing was too clever as a solution to be coy about it, though. Don't forget that the DrWho production team likes messing with the fans (toclafane means fool the fans, says the BBC website). It's quite possible that in a few years time, the notion of Jack becoming a disembodied face will be a joke, quite like the "I thought you were going to say [the Master] was your secret brother or something" - "(scoffs) You've been watching too much tv" exchange between Martha and the Doctor in the Sound of Drums. This about the popular fan theory that the Master and Doctor were brothers, validated by the confirmation (!) of the script editor that when a dying Master said (in a Fifth Doctor story, I think) "How can you do this to your own b...AARGH" he was about to say brother. 194.109.238.121 10:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think that for all it may be "obvious" that Jack and Boe are the same person, nothing in Doctor Who continuity is certain. For instance, in seasons 1 and 2, the Doctor was definitely the last Time Lord, and in season 3 he definitely isn't. I don't believe for one second that Davies has some grand plan - for a start, Boe seems to mainly exist as a comedy weirdo in the first season.HonestTom 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Boe's Offspring
I had just found this:

"However there is nothing to back up the idea jack is the face of boe, as the face of boe is said to have had offspring. Jack is a male so could not have given birth"

Personally, I think that this is not needed, as someone can have offspring without being the parent that gives birth. MadJaxter 19:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

But in The episode with van statten, The face was said to have given birth. The face itself

Having offspring does not mean that gave birth to the 'child'. As a human in a universe/timestream where humans have been shown to exist in the same form that Jack 'started' in possibily millons of years ago does not mean that he could not be the father. He could just be EXTREAMLY old, but still have the same lead in his pencil, he could just be the father, and given the infinate posibilites of the universe it is possible that the father could carry the child. (Not Logged in Person 1101)

Again, No proof, This is an encyclopedia not a rumourpedia.

There is a great quantity of an encyclopedia that consists of the current best guess, if a commentary on a TV program quotes items from the TV program inself as invedence, it is just as valid if not more so than rejecting it on an inividuals interpritation of pervious contents. (Not Logged in Person 1101)

Then state it might be true.

Drunk off my ass, watching TV at a party while geeking out on alaptop, no way I am proclaring something is true, I ain't even got a fricking spellcheck... anyone know why Windows Firefox is missing it when the Ubuntu verison does? :D (Not Logged in 'Drunk' Person 1101)

Re:"Jack is a male so could not have given birth": I seem to remember Jack saying he was pregnant once in the First Torchwood episode. --Dave the Rave (DTR) talk 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Given there history of inclusing the more fanatical audiance in the plot of the show and then including everyone at the end of the series I cannot believe that the writers/producers would include a 'Screw You' to the 'general' audience of the same level of stating something that has been discussed over three seasons and then missleading them. --62.56.125.6 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that Jack looks the way he does as the Face of Boe (assuming it's him) surely means that his immortality has forced him to evolve. This evolution may have given him the ability to give birth. --Godlesswanderer 19:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Um...you're forgetting that Jack is from Boe, not Earth. Maybe he can give birth...--User:saucealexman 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Where abouts does it say that he is from Boe? --Godlesswanderer 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He didn't, he said he was from the Boeshane Peninsula. Peninsula implies he's referring to a specific area/region, rather than a planet. There could easily be a peninsula named that on earth in the future. One other thing, in one of the books, Jack mentions seeing someone dressed as "the Face of Boe." Queer Scout 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The writers / producers have said that Jack is the Face of Boe in the related material, Podcast Commerty thingy, that comes with each episode, if the people who make a fantasy say it is true, I think you have to believe them until they change there minds :D (Not Logged in Person 1101) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.249.181 (talk • contribs)

Well, surely the solution to all this is to just say what it said in the show - that Jack refers to being known as the Face of Boe, but we can't know for sure. I mean, there's lots of possibilities. He might have been named after the Face, or he might have been joking. HonestTom 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought so, and that's how it stands at the moment, but apparently not; we must decide whether or not he is. Incidentally, while I personally favour keeping it open, I wouldn't be a pedantic anorak if I didn't point out Jack claimed he's been pregnant in "Everything Changes", although that doesn't prove anything. Daibhid C 22:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The podcast episode commentary contains the producers confirming that it's all true. The articles should be merged. People who have nothing to do with the production of the series pontificating on a Wikipedia Talk page don't have the where with all to override what the producers think! Sorry!! Put in qualifiers that the information hasn't been absolutely confirmed on screen if you must, but the articles should be merged as the evidence from two important sources say YES!


 * Even if and when they are absolutely confirmed on screen as being the same person, I still don't think they should be merged. There's no question that the Tenth Doctor is the same person as the First Doctor, and those articles aren't being merged. Daibhid C 16:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing
Would it be more correct to say that the Face of Boe is Jack, or the other way around? Despite the fact FOB was a nickname from his youth, the title would have to apply to the future persona of Jack, no? I'd go with Jack is the Face of Boe, as Jack is the character that becomes the Face of Boe. mpbx 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with that wording. By then, he have grown beyond the point where he was Jack. BethEnd 13:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing should happen, as we do not even know for sure that Jack is indeed the Face.
 * Yes we do, it's been confirmed. And we should probably say that the Face of Boe is Jack. Jasca Ducato 21:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been confirmed. It's been stated that Jack was known as the face of boe from time agent academy. Which may or may not mean he adopted it again upon becoming a giant face in the distant future, or, if he heard Martha and the Doctor discussion the FoB in 'Utopia' he said it as a joke, or it was a strange coincidence. Canon has not officially shown they are the same, RTD even "backpeddled" in the podcast a bit. 24.20.105.177 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First/last appearances
Please change:

First appearance The Empty Child Last appearance Ongoing

to:

First appearance The Empty Child (Doctor Who) Everything Changes (Torchwood) Last appearance Last of the Time Lords (Doctor Who) Ongoing (Torchwood)

His first and last appearances in both shows should be noted, and despite there being a message there, somebody just doesn't seem to get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your posts, it makes it very difficult to associate talk page discussion with edits otherwise.
 * There's nothing inaccurate about simply listing his first appearance in all shows of the Doctor Who Universe, and it's much simpler than listing both series separately.--Trystan 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

First appearance
This is going to probably turn into a debate about how they are different characters and all that, but shouldn't his first appearance be The End of the World? The Face of Boe first appeared in that episode and it has been revealed that they are the same person. Thoughts? 86.157.160.234 12:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Just like anakin skywalker's 1st appearance is not star wars ep4. May be revealed as the same person eventually, but they are distinct characters. mattbuck 12:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As it has been confirmed by Russell T Davies that Jack IS the Face of Boe, even if you keep the articles unmerged, wouldn't it be true to put that Jack's first appearance is in the End of the World in Series 1? LuGiADude 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, see above. mattbuck 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BUT if a = b, and b = c, then in that case, a = c, correct? No, I'm not stating that MAYBE a =c, a definitely IS c. b being Boe, and c being the first appearance. So if a is captain jack, then his first appearence = c. WHICH IS THE END OF THE WORLD. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. So yes, Anakin Skywalker's first appearance IS in ep4. 172.142.152.254 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be civil in your posts. The point is that the Face of Boe has been a distinct character from Captain Jack, and RTD does NOT state that they are one and the same, he states it's a theory. He's the ultimate creative force behind the series, thus his interpretation is the kosher one. Like I said, they are distinct CHARACTERS, even if they are the same being. The first appearance of the character of Jack was in the WW2 ep, and 1st appaearance of character of Boe was EOTW. mattbuck 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Right... but RTD said they WERE in the Podcast for episode 13... :S I'm sorry, but if RTD says so, is that not enough? Seeing as that RTD is Number 1? 172.142.152.254 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he did NOT say they were the same. He said it was a THEORY. Combining them would lead to mass confusion. Keep it as it is. mattbuck 17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He doesn't really say it is a theory - he seems to more suggest jokingly that, if he were a fan, he would rather it be a theory, than definitive. To be precise, he says "I have to say (a few jumbled words), even though I'm having written it, I am of the school that it's a theory. I'm not actually saying it" at which point Julie Gardner cuts him off to state "No, stop. (Davies laughs) No-one believes it. Stop back-pedalling. He is the Face of Boe (Davies laughs again); Captain Jack". Though as I said before. I don't agree the two articles should be merged, as, like you say, they have been completely distinct characters, even if they are the same being. --86.130.30.88 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They are sufficently different characters. Trying to make them the same would only lead to confusion and countless edit wars. We keep it as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs)


 * But he does say it's a theory, explicitly, in the part you quoted. I didn't hear any mention of what he would prefer as a fan.  My interpretation was rather that he was speaking as the creator of the show, meaning he left it deliberately somewhat ambiguous.--Trystan 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I said he "jokingly suggests" it. I specifically included that bit, so someone couldn't argue that I didn't include it deliberately. I also included the bits where he laughs while Julie Gardner is talking, as reference to why I felt he considered it jokingly. And I didn't say that he said he was speaking as a fan, but suggests it, as he said "even though" (suggesting it was his intention, as writer, that they be the same) he wrote it, "he is of the school that it's a theory" (with the assumption that by school, he means what's in this article), and would therefore be part of a group (the fans) that believe it is only a theory. Though I guess that bit's up to an individual's own interpretation of what he said, as shown by our own differing views about how he said it, so I won't go into it any further. --86.130.30.88 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

You're being absolutely ludicrous. That sort of thing can go in TARIS index file or some sort of Wikia, but we need a distinct out-of-universe context. Plain as day, no discussion required. ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's being "absolutely ludicrous"? --86.130.30.88 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Implication that Jack may be the Face of Boe
I'd have to disagree with these edits, which remove discussion of the representation that Jack may be the Face of Boe. While we certainly shouldn't that take that to be a canonical truth within the show's universe, it's unarguable that the theory is being put forward by the writers, and indeed, the show's writer explicitly states in the podcast he is putting forward that theory.--Trystan 18:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, originally I had a mention of nickname being the Face of Boe (unlinked purposefully) but it was removed. The lead section is regardless, specifically intended to make sense to non-fans of the show. Don't go too deep into the show's mythology in the opening! The opening currently summarises Jack in three relevant paragraphs: a short one to say he's a fictional character. The second explains appearances, dates, etc. The third is a brief summary of Jack's role and character. ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure where to put it otherwise, but... did anybody besides me notice that the soundtrack changed to a variant of the "Face of Boe"-theme (which was used in the other 2 episodes featuring the Face of Boe) as Jack told his story of being called the "Face of Boe" --16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Face of Boe in lead section
I have added a comment to the lead section that we should NOT add that Jack may be the Face of Boe in that section. It is a minor joke, and is not truly relevant to the ongoing character; thus, applying the keep it simple strategy of WP:LEAD, we should keep it out of the lead. It will only confuse casual readers, and is explained in depth later anyway. mattbuck 11:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is only your POV that it is a "minor joke". We should report the words as spoken, and not let our own opinions cloud the meaning. TharkunColl 11:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, but whether or not it is a joke, it will still confuse casual readers and is not helpful when wanting to get a brief introduction to the character. mattbuck 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What you're saying, in effect, is that facts should be jettisoned in order to avoid confusion. That is not how an encyclopedia works. TharkunColl 12:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that the facts are there for someone who wishes to know more about the character - they can read the rest of the article. But if someone wants a brief definition about who Jack is, then knowing that he is also known as the Face of Boe is irrelevant. WP:LEAD states that Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word - that he is the Face of Boe qualifies for this. The important facts for the lead are: John Barrowman, Doctor Who, Torchwood, time traveller, 51st century, true name unknown, immortal. However, it does seem that we are not going to reach an agreement between ourselves here, so I suggest we leave this until someone else comments. mattbuck 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Opinion in the sense of editorial judgment as to the relative importance of information, what warrants inclusion, and where, is not something we can or should get rid of. In this case, it's not significant enough for the lead section, let alone lead sentence.--Trystan 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is crucial information - just as is the fact that the Tenth Doctor is the same individual as the First Doctor, for example. TharkunColl 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We know factually (with verified sources) that the First Doc is the same as the Tenth. But, there is only speculation "in canon" that Jack == *THE* FOB (not the same FOB as Jack was called when he was younger).  It should not be stated in the lead para. --Masem 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is this about the First and Tenth Doctors being the same? I cannot find any reference about it anywhere.


 * 1st and 10th doctors the same? That's rubbish. mattbuck 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, it's not the same actor, but they are the same "individual" as reflected by the statement that starts all individual Doctor articles in the lead paragraph "blah blah is the nth incarnation of the Doctor...", which implies that we're really talked about the same person. Same sort of way that there's only one Master character despite having 6 actors play him to this point.  Regardless, we have reference in the canon (television shows) that state this progress of one character through many different appearances and personality, but it always remains that one person, and thus it's fair to say that in the lead sentence.
 * But Jack's situation is completely different. It's effectively a theory thrown over the wall by RTD by its inclusion in tLotTL, and there's no hard evidence as yet to connect Jack to the real FOB.   Thus, as others have been trying to point out, it makes no sense to even mention FOB in the lead paragraph, much less give heavy weight to Jack becoming FOB within the article body. --Masem 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh right, I see what you mean about 1st doctor being the 10th doctor. I thought they meant that the 10th doctor would become the 1st in some weird loop where he is never actually born. Still say FoB should not be mentioned either in infobox or in lead. mattbuck 21:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By making Jack become the Face of Boe, it explains how tFoB knew that there was another time lord. With all the infomation here, it's almost certain that jack = tFoB 202.137.73.109 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that they are the same, but it's mentioned elsewhere, and they may be the same person, but they are distinct characters. See various other bits of discussion on this page. mattbuck 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regeneration (Doctor Who) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs)


 * Did any of you actually see the episode in question? The meaning was plain. Are we speaking a different language here? TharkunColl 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Face of Boe" are three English words used as a proper name. Thing is, there may be many people with the same proper name.  If I told you that "Jack" will be on Season 4 of Doctor Who, does that immediately imply it's Captain Jack?  It could be a character named Jack Sprat played by a completely different actor and I wouldn't have lied to you.  It's just that in the fandom, as soon as you hear "Jack" you immediately think of Jack Harkness.   Same with the three words "Face of Boe".  There's two distinct uses of that name: One that Jack Harkness was called when he was younger in the 51st century (which is the only meaning that you can get from what Jack says in tLotTL), and one that is the name of the face-in-the-huge-jar creature.  There's very loose connections between these two people (they both know the Doctor, they both know YANA, etc.) but except for the fact that fandom psychologically makes us think that there is a singular "Face of Boe" in the universe but there's no factual proof for this.  The dialog just prior to Jack's line in tTotLT is purposely written to throw the question (NOT FACT) of "is Jack the face-in-the-jar FOB?" to us, with Jack rhetorically wondering if it's a coincidence.
 * Summary: Jack is a Face of Boe, but not necessarily the Face of Boe as everything before tTotLT has come to understood. It cannot be put as fact yet. --Masem 23:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The words are plain. Fandom can go and f%*& itself. TharkunColl 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to remember that this is an article about a fictional work, and so reasoning things as if we could determine some "objective truth" isn't a sensible approach. What tLotTL does is imply a connection.  There is no sense in which that suggestion is either "true" or "false", it's just a suggestion.--Trystan 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What you're asking is to go with fandom and make the immediately leap that Jack is the FOB. We're supposed to be staying as unbiased as possible here, and the only unbiased intepretion of Jack's parting words is that he was at one point called a FOB, and the Doc says he'll likely live a long long time.  That's not enough as Wikieditors to make the leap (despite the fact it's a short leap) from a to the.  We can say the suggestion is there (as noted just above) but we can't factually state that it is true.  --Masem 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to be the so called "fans" who wish to resist the connection; maybe it messes up their preconceived notions. Jack's words were plain. He is the Face of Boe. TharkunColl 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm a fan but I love the fact that Jack is Boe, and if you look elsewhere on this talk page, you'll see me making an argument that they are. However, I do feel that the intro is meant to be a very basic, out-of-universe overview of the character, and including a possible connection to a fairly minor Doctor Who character is unnecessary so early in the article.  It is covered later on the page.  Paul730 05:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The words are perfectly plain and simple, yes. No one is denying Jack=Boe. What we are trying to explain to you however is that lead sections have to be written in a very specific way.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is canon (and I'm prepared to accept that it is) it's a major spoiler, since it comes out comparatively late - we learn a lot about the character before this revelation. Generally this article seems to lack spoiler warnings here for several major plot elements in Dr. Who / Torchwood, I think that there should be some. 80.6.105.66 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree, but there was a ruling that said spoiler warnings shouldn't be used anymore.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Immortality?
Where is it confirmed that Jack is immortal? Yes, so far, whenever he has died he has come back to life, but why should that be a never-ending process? The Tribe of Gum 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, but if you had actually *gasp* WATCHED Saturday's episode, you may just have found out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.32.48.236 (talk • contribs).


 * Jack asks the Doctor whether he (Jack) can ever die. The Doctor gives an answer that implies that he doesn't really know. So let me ask, where is the confirmation that Jack is immortal? The Tribe of Gum 19:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If Jack = Boe, then yes, Jack can die if he CHOOSES to - he just hasn't figured out how to die yet. Anyway, it would DEFINITELY explain the Face of Boe's insanely long life-span. LuGiADude 11:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't make any conclusions. Jumping to them is original research. Jack states he "cannot die" and I'm sure "Utopia" specifically mentions immortality or something to that effect. Regardless, it's a loose definition which he fits. Changing it and putting in a long-winded explanation in the lead will not do. We have no idea what will happen to Jack between now and "Gridlock" anyway. Maybe it's an Aquaman/The Dweller scenario. We don't know, don't speculate and most certainly do not change the page to reflect speculation. ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I mentioned it as a small number of people were arguing that, despite the clear reference in Last of the Time Lords, because Jack is immortal and the Face died, Jack can't be the Face. As far as I can tell, there is no clear evidence that Jack is "immortal". Mind you, Rasillon, and the others entombed with him in The Five Doctors were all designated as "immortal", but presumably must have ceased to exist sometime before the Eccleston Doctor appeared on screen.


 * In the light of the revelation in Last of the Time Lords, we must conclude that Jack is not immortal, just as we must conclude he is the Face. How best to reflect that in the article is what we now have to decide. The Tribe of Gum 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know that we really need to be in the business of drawing conclusions, as opposed to simply representing the fiction as portrayed.--Trystan 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's really what I'm getting at. Jack is not portrayed as being immortal. He is portrayed as being able to return to life, but it is never suggested that this process is infinite. He is portrayed as being the Face of Boe. The Tribe of Gum 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is portrayed is an implication that he is the Face of Boe. We're describing a fictional work, not writing an in-universe history, so I don't think we can lose a grip on how things are presented to the audience.--Trystan 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jack is portrayed currently within the series as immortal. Getting finicky about the semantics a the definition of a fictional ailment in science fiction is stupid. Who knows what will happen to Jack in the future, or what will be explained. Immortals by some definitions can age, by some definitions can be killed. "Extreme longevity" is hardly a term we can objectively insert into a paragraph without excessive explanation.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of saying "Jack is immortal", why not say instead "Jack believes he may be immortal" (immortal in the sense he can never die - else why would he ask the Doctor if he will ever die), or similar changes, if possible, for whatever suggests definiteness in the article (I doubt there'd be more than two or three changes). It's not much of a change, and doesn't require "excessive explanation". It's only ever implied that he can't die, in that he keeps coming back to life when he does - everybody he asks (yes, all one of them :P) seems to have no idea whether or not he can die, and similarly, neither does he. --86.141.189.38 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions on trying to clear this mess up
Here's a couple ideas of how we can make sure this page is organized better to prevent the massive amounts of edits that have been going on and hopefully come to a sane conclusion.
 * The "Character History" section called "Immortality" is not parallel with the other sections. I would either call it "Torchwood", "Joining Torchwood", or possibly splitting to "Before Torchwood" (and implying immediately after leaving the Doc in PotW) and "Torchwood".    Calling it "Immortality" begs the question and also seems to be drawing edits to include that he will be the FoB there.  This is the character "history", not future, so we should only be used known verifiable facts from episodes to fill that in.  (IOW, Jack mentioning he was poster-boy FOB when leaving the Doc is appropriate, saying that Jack may be FOB-in-a-jar is not).
 * A new section under "Abilities/Powers" (another title that I would think we could improve on but I have no ideas how yet) called "'The Face of Boe'" can go into the possible connection (with cited interviews from RTD and anyone else) that Jack may actually be the FOB. This provides one concise place within the article where this revelation can be stated with cited speculation.  --Masem 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with naming it "Torchwood" or "Before Torchwood" is that it encourages editors to come along and make "Rejoining the Doctor" and "Back in Cardiff" sections which only cover 3 episodes. Originally, the section was titled "Torchwood Institute". Oh, and there is no such thing as a character future. As long as it's been actually published (not in violation of WP:CRYSTAL) fictional characters have no present, past or future therefore everything is written in present tense. The Face of Boe stuff goes logically right at the end of his character history (and it's allways "the" in every instance, and they even make reference to it changing the "Gridlock" script, but technically loopholes exist until it's shown onscreen which is why it's only cited as being possible). The mention being small and cited at least prevents anonymous and newbie editors from adding it in a way which is inconsistent with the current style it's been written in.


 * A powers and abilities subsection called "Face of Boe" doesn't make any sense. The "revelation" is confirmed and therefore goes in his history and nowhere else. We can however mention under powers that he still ages... I don't see why we need an entire subsection to attract spiels of Boecruft from enthusiastic Whovians.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 13:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem with putting the future character history in that section as appropriate, I'm first of all noting that in the context of already knowing the Jack character "Immortality" makes sense, but does not make sense to someone that is learning about him for the first time. I understand what you're saying and agree that putting in subsection titles in the wrong way will encourage others to fill every little detail.  Maybe "Returning to the 20th Century" or something along those lines.  (and I won't call the single jaunt to 100 Trillion out as a separate section, just one single travel with the Doc).  Then future history can be something like "Post-Torchwood" (as far as we know at this time).  Then in this Post-Torchwood section we can talk about the relationship between Jack and FOB with appropriate citations. (What those are, we've argued before, I'm just trying to nail down one place in the article where mention of the Jack-FOB connection should be put where it logically goes with the character flow to avoid the massive number of edits). --Masem 14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At the moment there's only one line on-screen referring to the FOB connection, which while perfectly canon and cited... doesn't warrant an entire section. I think we can probably get away with changing the name of "Immortality" back to "Torchwood" though, what do you think? As long as nobody goes and puts the Doctor Who 3 parter in its own section or subsection...~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I may have been the one who changed it to "Immortality", and before that I think "Torchwood and beyond." The intent is to have a section title that clearly covers his later history in both series. I'm fine with calling it something else, as long as it accomplishes this.  As for the Boe thing, people are going to want to put it in, and other people are going to want to take it out, regardless of header names.  As long as it isn't Wikilawyered into oblivion (i.e. not mentioned at all), it can be in whatever section makes the most sense. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about "Meeting the Doctor" and "Leading Torchwood" or something like that.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 18:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good; that would be much clearer.--Trystan 22:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass
Hello. I have read through the GA criteria and examined this article closely. I have marked it as a "pass" because of the outstanding quality and referencing, whilst also it lacks no real problems in the text. Everything seems verified and accurate enough. If you believe this decision is wrong please contact me. Francisco Tevez 17:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cardiff-Bay-01.jpg
Point raised on the FAC discussion: "Oppose: Image:Cardiff-Bay-01.jpg does not contribute to the article in any significant way. The caption on the image on the article says 'Jack leaving the Doctor's company in Doctor Who series three' Why is this significant? It's not mentioned in the article at all, except on the caption. Nothing about the image seems significant enough to warrant inclusion of this fair use image. It depicts the character, nothing more. We already have another image for depiction purposes. This is just decoration. --Durin 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)"While it might be possible to reformat the page in order to place the image near to the point where Jack decides to choose Torchwood over a place in the TARDIS, there is a further problem with the use of this image — it's not from a scene in the episode, but from a photograph taken by a fan when location filming was taking place at Cardiff Bay. As such, it doesn't illustrate that scene. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 20:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphan reference
May be useful again some day, Eve Myles discusses the romantic potential between Jack and Gwen. () ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 17:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk FAC
Continuing discussiong here, since GimmeBot has archived the FAC page and the article wasn't promoted. So, my last comment was:


 * Russell T Davies referred to a scene in "Last of the Time Lords" as promoting a theory that Jack's future may involve him become or age into another recurring character in the series -- This is very awkward sounding.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. It's very hard to get it right, because at one point you want to offer a slight in-universe explanation so that it makes sense (What's the Face of Boe? How does he become that?) and at the same time you need to ground the whole thing in the OOU context of the producer's comments.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 22:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I really think everyone is over-thinking this whole thing (and BTW the episode in question airs in the US in just over a week, so expect some changes being made afterwards). There is an article on the Face of Boe, so the 5 people reading this article who don't know who the Face of Boe is can click on the wikilink. The fact a line of dialogue makes a clear implication -- as confirmed in the commentary for the episode, albeit with Russell T. Davies using weasel words around it -- is something that shouldn't be buried in what is virtually an "in popular culture" section as it is now. I wish we were still allowed to use spoiler tags, though, as this is the epitome of spoiler. 68.146.41.232 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, it's a bit much for a lead and it's a tiny bit short of definitely confirmed. It doesn't belong in the lead and doesn't come into the Appearances (character "history" sections being discouraged) either.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Heinlein's Captain Harkness
Is there a possibility that the name of this character is a reference to Robert A. Heinlein's character Captain Harkness from Farmer in the Sky? --Khokkanen 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that at all notable? mattbuck 11:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It could go under character creation if any critic or Davies or Barrowman comments upon it.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Rose's Actions and Jacks Deaths
Just trying to figure out why on 23 september Zythe, you reverted the parts i added on What actually happened to Jack, to make him immortal, and the section on Death's of Jack. I felt both added to information about the character. I had searched high and low to find out why he was immortal, but what was in the wiki was ambigious at best. "Jack was made immortal by the actions of rose" Isn't specific enough. The fact that he is Time trapped, permanently anchored in time is infact huge. Also goes to knocking out the Jack equals the Face of Bode Arguments, because it helps it (he could have been transported to the begining of time at some point) and hinders it (Because he was time stuck, he can't die, so giving away the energe of the infinate time vortex would be meaningless)

As for the Deaths, That i believe was rather interesting in itself. I purposefully didn't make bullet points because that would be too long and gruling, but it's interesting to be reading about "how immortal " he is, then to actually see the deaths that he's 'survived.'

Since the revert was given without explanation, I wanted to a little explanation than to keep adding it, and having it reverted over and over in fustration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.152.184 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Because that information had been skimmed so the emphasis was on real-world information. Essentially, plot points don't matter as much. It would be better to discuss how to integrate it.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a link at the bottom of the page to Jack's article at the Doctor Who Wiki. That website is written more for fans than Wikipedia is, so the emphasis is on plot and "in-universe" perspective (at least as far as I know from using other wikis).  If you like, you could detail Jack's immortality and deaths there.  As Zythe already said, Wikipedia is (or should be) more about real world context, as it's an encyclopedia and not a fan site.  Paul730 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Products
Aren't there a number of action figures of Jack? With a source, these could be mentioned in "Critical reception and impact", or even be split off into a "Popular culture" section, along with the Dead Ringers parody. Any thoughts? Paul730 01:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What's happened to this page?
Last time I looked, this page was full of information that happened to Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and Torchwood...and now I find it's only full of behind-the-scenes information and everything that's happened to Jack within the Whoniverse seems to be gone! Can we please get all the fictional information back in? – Alan-WK 18:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was cleaned up so it could become a featured article candidate. Although it was not promoted at the time, it is still much better quality than it was beforehand.  Jack's story in the shows has not been removed, but summarised in accordance to Wikipedia policy.  Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be plot summaries; in-universe detail is only tolerated to provide context for the encyclopedic information which this article now contains.  If you really want to access the old page, you can find it somewhere in the article history.  You could also check out the TARDIS Index File wiki linked at the foot of the page for more in-universe info, but Wikipedia is not the place for this.  Paul730 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the new article focuses on nothing but Jacks' sexuality and reactions thereto. Also the article does seem to be less about Jack and more about what real people say about Jack these comments are almost all about Jacks' sexuality.  All in all the article seems to be very lopsided twoard his sexuality and not about the character at all.--Murphoid 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia article, and should focus on how the character was created and developed, and why the character is notable in pop culture. If Jack is notable for his sexuality, then the article has to reflect that.  This is not biography for fans to read about their favourite character's life and quirks.  If you have reliable sources discussing other aspects of Jack's character besides his sexuality, feel free to add that information.  Paul730 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)