Talk:Owen Harper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Torchwood task force which deals with Torchwood articles and pages.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Owen's sexual ethics

I think something should be added about what might be called his "sexual ethics", based on both his use of the spray and the website's background check, but I don't know the best way of phrasing it. Daibhid C 23:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a stab anyway. It probably needs tidying up. Daibhid C 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I don't think Owen is bisexual. Out of everyone he is the most hetero. - Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.72.194 (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt that he's homosexual. If I remember the episode correctly he seemed to use the spray to avoid a conflict with the man, not to make out with him. --Phoenix Hacker (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
re his ethics, I know that many fans (most including those at the "behind the sofa" blog) do not approve of his use of the pheremone sprey, as it efectivly removes free will, and could be classed as a date-rape drug. I feel that this controversy is worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Tingle (talk • contribs) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] murderer?

Jack didn't die so how is he a murderer? Lizzie Harrison 15:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether you see what happened to Jack as "dying and then coming back" or "not really dying", and on how you define murder. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Owen murdered Jack. Then Jack came back to life. Owen's capacity for murder was even foreshadowed by the episodes Ghost Machine and Combat.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, folks, let's stop the slow-motion edit war and talk this over. If you shoot someone, believing that they are mortal, but they turn out not to be, are you a murderer? Does Jack really die (note that he says, "I can't die"). If he doesn't die, does that mean that Owen is merely an intended murderer, rather than an actual murderer? We should all admit that this is a grey area. We need to define the terms "murder" and "death" in the Torchwood context, and discuss what's actually said and shown on screen. Reverting back and forth will get us nowhere. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Owen just shot him so he would not stop them, he did not go "I hate you, I want to kill you". Just because someone has the capacity to murder does not make her a murderer. Jack was alive enough to hug people, drink coffee, forgive Owen and do a runner in the TARDISLizzie Harrison 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Owen shot him in the head repeatedly and then Jack died (and then he came back to life). Owen murdered Jack, Jack came back to life, Jack died fighting Abaddon, Jack came back again and forgave Owen. Forgiveness doesn't mean he didn't do it. I don't get what your motivation is. He fits the category. Being places on the article is not an attack of your favourite fictional character, if that's what this is. You're just incorrect.
And also, my noting of the foreshadowing in previous episodes wasn't to say those episodes show he is a murderer but rather to point out that it was likely the writer's intent, to consistently develop Owen's character.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that part of what Lizzie is saying is that murder requires intent, and in that scene it looks as if Owen's intent is merely to stop Jack, rather than to kill him. If you read the scene the way she's describing, Owen's crime would be manslaughter rather than murder. Am I right, Lizzie? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you shoot someone in the head repeatedly with intent to wound? ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading this, I believe that the people who believe he should go in the catogory are right.Lizzie Harrison 12:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if only for a few seconds, Owen was indeed a murderer. You agreed with the conclusion, and then removed him from the category. Let's stick with the conclusion! -- LeCourT:C 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, he did kinda kill Beth from Sleeper and Lisa in Cyberwoman. Leo (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the adorable space whale! ~ZytheTalk to me! 12:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The space whale was more like Euthanasia. --GracieLizzie (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Although, if you are counting Lisa and Beth's kills doesn't that mean you can add Jack, Gwen, Ianto & Tosh to the killers list. Leo (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack definitely!~ZytheTalk to me! 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychologist? and novels

Just because he wrote up a profile on someone once, doesn't mean he's a "trained psychologist." The rest of the info about him contradict this -- Owen trained as a medical doctor and then worked in A&E with the aim of being a surgeon, so it's doubtful he was ever a trained psychologist. Also, does the info in the Torchwood books count, and should it be added (to the main article or in its own section in the article) because they give a lot of details about Owen's former life and how he came to join Torchwood, etc. 172.143.65.240 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The general practice for Doctor Who articles has been to add the information, but state its source clearly; we generally also add a note indicating that the novels are "of unclear canonicity". The BBC has never made a clear statement about what is and isn't canon for Doctor Who or, now, for Torchwood, so it's original research either to suggest that they're as canonical as the television series or to state clearly that they're not. For good examples of how it's been handled in Doctor Who character articles, see Susan Foreman, Romana and Peri Brown; you'll see that info from non-telly sources is usually separated out into "other appearances", so that readers can make up their own minds about how much it "counts". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He's dead!

Should the fact that this character is now dead be included in the article? - TheProf07 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Add on, i was think more of its own section as oppose to a small part at the bottom of the page:) TheProf07 (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King of the Weevils?

The second series has shown Owen calling himself "King of the Weevils" but is this because he was possessed by Death in Dead Man Walking or because he fought them off in Combat? 90.198.228.28 (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ambiguous.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I was wondering whether it should be mentioned. Then again, there's not much evidence about the Weevil's fear of him between Combat and Dead Man Walking, so... Arraitchjee (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we'd just be speculating Ged UK (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canon

The text on canon removed in my recent edit didn't need to be said, just as one wouldn't quibble about "canon" in other works whose writers lack that particular obsession. It would probably be better to reserve annotations about canon to articles on subjects that have a coherent concept of canon. In particular, quoting the concept of canon adopted by the maintainers of a fan site, who openly admit that the BBC does not pander to their obsessions, is grossly inappropriate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your choice of words might be aggressive. Simply stating that there is no coherent canon shows the reader that the Television and Literature sections don't necessarily refer to one complete, unabridged story. It's not a manner of appropriate, it's a manner of writing in an out-of-universe style.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)