Talk:Gene Hunt

Birthdate

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

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

Using present tense to describe fiction

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

Leadership Skills

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

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

Revert

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

It is unreferenced. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 08:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using "unreferenced" as a catch-all, end-of-conversation reason for reverting to your preferred version of an article, Jack. 90% of this article has no explicit references.

Mentioning that a similar character exists in the other series would be fine; if we've actually got any sources that talk about how the writers altered the character (or what Glenister thinks of Keitel's performance), we could have a couple of paragraphs in the main article. So long as we don't go back to the confusing "Gene Hunt worked in Manchester in 1973 and New York in 1974" tone that this article had for a while, I think we're fine. --McGeddon (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

You undid twenty separate edits to your own previous version of this article, because some original research had crept in during those edits. You've also been consistently reverting to your own versions of Life on Mars related articles because you disagree with the edits of User:MileyDavidA this week. Your explanation for all of this has been "original research/unreferenced". --McGeddon (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have been, they are all full of blatant unreferenced/OR information. Taking into account what a fetish you have for the rules, I thought you would agree. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 09:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

They have contained very small amounts of original research, but that's all. They're no more unreferenced than the current versions of the articles, which draw heavily from the series itself as a source. Reverting them and giving the user four flat vandal warnings because his contributions are somehow more "unreferenced" than the rest of the article is unhelpful and confusing, and I hope we haven't lost an enthusiastic Life on Mars fan because of it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If you say so, I'm past the point of arguing with you, its just not worth it. You seem to be some sort of robot, who just reads what you want to see. But make no mistakes, WP:OR/unreferenced material will not enter this article. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 09:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like an unhelpful misconception about how Wikipedia works. Unreferenced material can become referenced, and original research can sometimes be salvaged by sourcing or rewriting it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing uncontroversial facts that you know to be true like the name of the actor playing Hunt in the US remake because they're "unreferenced" is simply silly, especially considering the amount of unreferenced material in this and related articles. Ausir (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not influenced by what you think is silly. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

If there is an unsourced but uncontroversial fact in an article, you should consider flagging it with the temporary {{fact}} tag rather than deleting it outright. Or simply raise it on the talk page before editing, if you are unsure how true something is. Ausir is right when he says it is "silly" to pick out individual, uncontroversial facts as unreferenced, when 90% of the article lacks clear references.

You are bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point here, and damaging the article. Please stop this. --McGeddon (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And what point is this, I am trying to prove? Instead of not removing it, you could always try putting a reference next to the text. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're using an excessively strict interpretation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy to remove edits that you have unclear personal objections to, while leaving your preferred unsourced material intact. This is disruptive. --McGeddon (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you have reffed it, the problem has gone. You should have just done that in the first place. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguably Ausir should have checked that the existing source backed up the specific word "Lieutenant", when he added it to the paragraph, but it's no great crime that he overlooked it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why you're removing only unreferenced and easily checkable basic facts about the US version, and not any of the unreferenced, and less obvious facts that are present in the article now? This is just silly. Ausir (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What is silly? We are discussing something that has happened, and gone. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Ausir (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We are debating over something that is old. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How is the status of old information different than new information in terms of having to be referenced? Ausir (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may not understand the convo. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You're saying we should stop trying to explain why deleting unreferenced and uncontroversial material can damage an article, because your previous deletions have now been fixed? Does this mean you now understand why it's sometimes unhelpful and will keep it in mind, or that you disagree and will continue to delete similar content in future? --McGeddon (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what your on about. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try re-reading this thread. Two editors are concerned that your approach of deleting uncontroversial, unreferenced material (while leaving other content intact) is unhelpful. --McGeddon (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)