Talk:Harriet Jones

Season 4 Rumor

I heard from a number of sources that she will be in season 4/30 as a dalek? A good one about is http://www.sylvestermccoy.com/newdoctorwho/ on the right hand side somewhere? - Alpha123 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Alpha123

I've removed that information from the article as i feel it fails WP:Crystal. Please do not re-add it until there has been a discussion here. Thank you TheProf | Talk 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Jones. Please explain her addition to the DR. As the timeline is continuos and she has so far not been seen again what is her purpose? Unless I have missed some situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.144.182 (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If major characters are to have their own page, then the decision has been made. If it were up to me, though, programs like Doctor Who would just have one article, not a menagerie of articles. It's just entertainment, not really the kind of real knowledge that belongs in an encyclopedia, IMO. I'd also eliminate the many raw geography articles, as they belong in a gazetteer, not an encyclopedia. David Spector (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence???

At the end of The Christmas Invasion, it was implied that Harriet Jones was brought down by a vote of no confidence. This is inconsistent to what she said earlier in the episode when she said she had won the election by a landslide majority. For her to lose the vote of no confidence a large number of people from her own ranks would have to cross the floor to the Opposition to bring her down. A defection on that scale just does not happen in political reality. --The Shadow Treasurer 06:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the reporters suggested a vote of no confidence the day after the whispering campaign began, but there is nothing in the series to suggest this is what happened. Presumably a demise similar to that of Margaret Thatcher, who is alluded, occurred.

Yes but Margaret Thatcher was bought down by a party not a parliamentary vote. It would have been more plausible for Harriet to have lost a party vote than a parliamentary vote. --The Shadow Treasurer 02:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't

I'm tempted to add one of my sites, the Harriet Jones fanlisting [1] but I'm unsure if I should or not. I mean as I am the site owner it could be taken as a vanity edit couldn't it? What do other people think? GracieLizzie 11:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your fan site needs upgrading first. Oh yeah and by the way you're supporting the wrong team. But I have a question of my own: isn't she "The Right Honourable" Harriet Jones? ☺ APclark Be nice not nasty 17:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but she's not been heard as being referred to as that in the series (yet). She really should be the Right Honourable Harriet Jones, PC, MP, but I don't think we should place that in until it's officially mentioned. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think she'd be PC (she's not a peer). I'd imagine her proper title would just be The Right Honourable Harriet Jones, MP. I'm not even sure MP would be used. No articles about real politicians use the title, and I don't see why this would be different. smurrayinchester ^{Merry Christmas!(User), (Go Carolling)} 21:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

As Prime Minister, she'd be part of the Privy Council (peer or not), so she'd be entitled to have the letters after her name, although it's not often used. But as you said, this is really nitpicking. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, she wouldn't. The letters are only for peers. Proteus (Talk) 12:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, do a Google search for "The Right Honourable Tony Blair PC MP". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what Google says. Anyone writing "The Right Honourable Tony Blair PC MP" is objectively wrong. Proteus (Talk) 12:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide a source that says the letters are only for peers? I ask this as an honest question. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Debrett's Correct Form, for one, and pretty much every book on correct form ever written. It's hardly a controvertial point... Proteus (Talk) 12:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Rights and privileges of members states that only peers who are members get PC; commoners do not. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this going off the subject just a tiny bit? ☺ APclark Be nice not nasty 17:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias?

I know there are conventions in British TV but does it really matter what party she may or may not be a memeber of? I know the initial episodes made reference to the 45 minutes claims and may merit a trivia mention but probably not the main article. The suposition she is a Labour MP seems a bit of a stretch IMHO. User:Alex

I think that the "babes" reference is an interesting one and worth mentioning, as well as stating the uncertainty appropriately. It wouldn't be appropriate to introduce the article by calling her a "fictional Labour MP", but I think the note as it is in the article is fine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment "I'm hardly one of the babes" could be interpreted either way (she might not consider herself one simply because she's not of the same party), so saying it indicates that she's a Labour MP is potentially misleading. Her swift emergence as the new Prime Minister indicates that she is affiliated with a major political party, potentially the existing one, but there is no indication which party that was on the "Doctor Who" earth (or indeed whether they have the traditional political parties there; they might have completely different names and identities, much like its politicians have different names and identities). User:MultipleTom

I wouldn't say it's biased, but I certainly got the impression that she was implying she was not a Labour party politician and was surprised to see only one possible conclusion from the phrase in the article. I've tweaked the paragraph to show both possiblities. SynergyBlades 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Dating Jones' prime ministership

We first saw her in March 2006 (Aliens In London and World War Three) and although we don't know exactly when she became P.M., it can't have been very long after World War Three ended, because Britain needed a P.M. By December 2006 in The Christmas Invasion, she had the job and seemed relaxed in it, strongly inferring she hadn't gained it only that month or so. Various tie-in sites, including her own Flydale North one infer she was P.M. through Sunny parts of 2007, so up to at least May 2007, which is 18 months prior to The Sound of Drums, which is October 2008 as per calendars and uniform-collection posters in Smith and Jones and Last of the Time Lords. The Sound of Drums confirms Harold Saxon became P.M. in October 2008, so infers there was a P.M. between Jones and Saxon. This may be Gordon Brown, or someone else! With Saxon now dead, Jones may or may not become P.M. again. Maybe Brown will. Or maybe some entirely new person will....

Isn't the Flydale North site a fan-made one and not sanctioned by the BBC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this link from the article as the URL is dead. If that turns out to be a temporary condition, it can be put back: Fan-made site for the fictional Flydale North constituency. -- Davidkevin 09:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If the rumours about Journey's End are correct, she's been converted by the Daleks (using stolen Cyberman tech?). So she won't be PM again. Digifiend (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter, with respect to improving the article? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 09:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Series 4 return

Can I just point out that the CBBC reference for her return does not state that she is in episode 13 86.154.185.86 (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It says she's at the end of the series. Clearly the climactic episode 13 :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If only t'were so! As it looks like we've had our last appearance from Harriet Jones, I've rewritten a lot of the article - there was a huge amount of repeated information which I've gotten rid of. It's still lacking sources though - if anyone can find any other interviews or anything about the character, that'd be grand Tphi (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Jones isn't actually shown to be fired at directly in episode 12. The Daleks gun moved to the right before it fires and her computer transmission ceases. It's possilbe that only her computer was fired at, which was to her left, the Dalek's right. Perhaps we should wait until episode 13 to see if it's actually verified that she was "exterminated" before stating such.

220.240.19.84 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Swampy 30/06/08 11:18am GMT+10

she was exterminated Pro66 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And you know this definitively how...? -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for speculation that she may have escaped certain death through some unknown means. There is not one scrap of evidence she might have survived. Kindly stop adding speculation to the article. Thankyou. Tphi (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Article referencing, general cleanup

I noticed the article had been tagged for referencing and tone issues, I've spent some time going through it and hopefully fixing a lot of this. There could always be more sources, but please write here if you feel the article still lacks something specific. Tphi (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

MP for Chiswick surely?

In the Series 4 Finale, Donna's grandfather states she he voted for her. As Donna and family live in Chiswick, surely she must be an ex-MP for Chiswick to if Wilf has voted in this way.

Or perhaps the writers do not realise that you don't vote for a PM, but a local MP. Btline (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would guess the writers meant Wilf had voted for her party back when she was its leader. She was MP for Flydale North, anyway. Tphi (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is probably what the writers meant, but they got the script wrong! As Wilf says that he voted for "her," not "her party". Heigh ho - the world goes on! Btline (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they got the script wrong at all. People say they voted for Tony Blair in 1997 when in fact they didn't. So it's pretty acurrate that some people would say they voted for her, when in fact all the did was vote for a candidate representing the same party as her in an election and as a result helped to make her/keep her as Prime Minister after that election. Evil Eye (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Could have moved from Flydale to Chiswich to be more sure of getting a seat 188.220.182.146 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. She could have. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the OR rule, thank you - that's kind of my point. You can't put in the apparent error, because that would be OR as there are several logical explanations (above me are some other ones) for it. 188.220.182.146 (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Link rot

The link for the "Mr. Copper Foundation" no longer works: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Damned_(Doctor_Who)#Continuity

I don't know what that is so I don't know of a way to fix it, and there doesn't seem to be any reference to such a foundation in the "Voyage of the Damned" article. 76.218.68.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harriet Jones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 15:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I like this character (probably influenced by my fondness of the actress!). I won't be able to get to this until Friday or Saturday (at the earliest) though. Ruby 2010/2013 15:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Perhaps mention the years she was in the series earlier in the lead?
• introduces, a running joke - unnecessary comma
• Despite being introduced as fair minded and hard working, the character - make clear you're talking about Harriet here
• is killed off in the penultimate episode of the - link of this episode?
• Make sure direct quotes are immediately followed by citations
• No need to link Eccleston more than once in article body
• I got to sacrifice myself to save the world." [8] - unnecessary space
• Collinson "[couldn't] bear the thought she's dead" - did he actually say that, or is that what someone else attributed to him?
• death and Davies stated - add comma after death
• Use single quote marks within quotations (" vs. ')
• I assume Davies intended for Harriet to reflect Margaret Thatcher (what with the Doctor's "looking old" line); perhaps add something about this to the production section? Currently all that is said about it is what critics are reading into it

My Comments -- Oh I loved the ending where she blew up that ship! Spot-on as you Brits like to say! I didn't think the story was a anti-war message, I thought it was right down the middle. Both reasonable sides (Hawk/Dove) were presented and for the record, I would have done exactly the same thing. It was also a good way to introduction Torchwood. It is a shame that Torchwood was so violent. Torchwood was a great idea but to much blood was spilled. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

oh, and for the main picture, it would be fabulous if you got one of her showing her ID!--68.118.188.188 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems comprehensive and no issues on images. Well done with the prose, just a few minor nitpicks above. I'll place the review on hold for seven days. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 22:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Eshlare, don't forget about Esther Drummond. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I made a few more tweaks, and the article now looks ready for GA status. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 04:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)